THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/philosophyofmyst01watk 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF 
MYSTICISM 


BY 

EDWARD  INGRAM  WATKIN 

AUTHOR  OF 

“SOME  THOUGHTS  ON  CATHOLIC  apologetics” 


NEW  YORK 

HARCOURT,  BRACE  AND  HOWE 
1920 


PRINTED  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN  BY  THE  RIVERSIDE  PRESS  LIMITED 
EDINBURGH 


ll/ 3 j-3| 

u3  335 

TO 

MY  MOTHER 


X If  % I O 


0 Lord  Almighty,  my  spirit  has  fainted  within  me  because  it  has 
forgotten  to  feed  upon  Thee.  I knew  Thee  not,  O my  Lord,  when  1 
went  after  vanity.  Who  can  free  himself  from  base  and  mean  ways, 
if  Thou,  0 my  God,  wilt  not  lift  him  up  to  Thee  in  pure  love  ? Thou 
wilt  not  take  away  from  me,  0 my  God,  what  Thou  hast  once  given  me  in 
Thine  only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ,  in  Whom  Thou  hast  given  me 
all  I desire.  I will  therefore  rejoice,  Thou  wilt  not  tarry  if  I wait  for 
Thee.  The  heavens  are  mine,  the  earth  is  mine,  and  the  nations  are 
mine  : mine  are  the  just,  and  the  sinners  are  mine : mine  are  the 
angels  and  the  Mother  of  God  ; all  things  are  mine,  God  Himself  is 
mine  and  for  me  because  Christ  is  mine  and  all  for  me.  What  dost 
thou  then  ask  for,  what  dost  thou  seek  for,  0 my  soul?  All  is  thine, 
all  is  for  thee  ; do  not  take  less,  nor  rest  with  the  crumbs  that  fall  from 
the  table  of  Thy  Father.  Go  forth  and  exult  in  thy  glory,  hide  thyself 
in  it,  and  rejoice,  and  thou  shalt  obtain  all  the  desires  of  thy  heart. 
O my  love,  all  for  Thee,  nothing  for  me : nothing  for  Thee,  everything 
for  me. 

St  John  of  the  Cross. 

(Trs.  David  Lewis.) 

From  the  “ Prayer  of  an  Enamoured  Soul 
and  Aspiration  to  Cod.” 


PREFACE 


At  a time  when  so  many  volumes  issue  from  the  Press  on  the 
subject  of  mysticism,  Western  or  Oriental,  Christian  or  non- 
Christian,  Universal  or  the  mysticism  of  an  individual  or  School, 
it  will  be  well  to  indicate  the  aspect  under  which  mysticism  is 
viewed  in  this  Work.  Many  modern  writers  confine  their  treat- 
ment of  mysticism  to  its  psychological  aspect,  for  they  regard 
mystical  experience  as  a wholly  subjective  state,  devoid  of  objec- 
tive validity  or  intellectual  significance.  For  example,  Professor 
Hoffding  views  this  experience  as  pure  feeling  whose  epistemo- 
logical interpretation  is  derived  ab  extra,  and  Miss  Evelyn  Under- 
hill, without  adopting  so  extreme  a position,  emphasises  the 
volitional  and  sentient  aspects  of  mystical  experience  at  the 
expense  of  the  cognitive.  To  me,  however,  it  is  as  impossible  to 
divorce  cognition  from  experience  as  it  would  be  impossible  with 
Mr  Bertrand  Russell  to  banish  value  from  ontology.  It  is  true 
that  the  categories  of  discursive  reason  are  inadequate  to  render 
the  knowledge  content  of  mystical  experience,  as  indeed  they  are 
inadequate  to  render  the  knowledge  content  of  any  experience  not 
given  immediately  by  themselves.  Nevertheless  they  can  render 
something  of  the  truth  apprehended  by  the  mystic.  Otherwise 
we  should  possess  no  mystical  literature.  After  all,  the  mystics 
have  not  been  dumb,  though  knowing  well  that  anything  they  can 
tell  us  falls  infinitely  short  of  their  experience.  All  other  forms  of 
experience  are  employed  as  data  for  the  construction  of  philo- 
sophies necessarily  stated  in  terms  of  discursive  reason.  The 
highest  form  of  human  experience,  that  of  the  mystic,  must  there- 
fore provide  most  valuable  data  to  metaphysics.  Historically 
the  most  satisfactory  metaphysic  has  employed  mystical  data.  I 
have  therefore  endeavoured  in  this  book  to  state  the  metaphysic 
implicit  in  mystical  experience,  a philosophy  of  mysticism.  This 
philosophy  is  the  body  of  truth  about  the  nature  of  ultimate  reality 
and  of  our  relationship  to  it  to  be  derived  from  the  content  of 
mystical  experience. 

This  metaphysic  of  mysticism  I find  to  consist  in  a doctrine  of 
ultimate  reality,  of  God,  as  the  Unlimited,  and  of  the  consequent 


n 


12  PREFACE 

relationship  between  man’s  limited  soul  and  the  Unlimited.  Thus 
the  philosophy  or  theology,  call  it  which  you  will,  of  mysticism  is 
a philosophy  of  the  Unlimited.  In  my  first  chapter  I vindicate 
the  epistemological  and  transubjective  validity  of  mystical 
experience.  I then  discuss  the  nature  of  its  Object  as  given 
immediately  or  by  implication  in  this  experience.  I proceed  to 
tieat  of  the  general  character  of  the  mystic  way,  to  determine  the 
principles  which  constitute  and  condition  the  via  mystica.  After 
this  I describe  its  stages  and  discuss  their  character,  causes  and 
value.  Throughout  I have  followed  as  my  guide  St  John  of  the 
Cross,  By  general  consent  he  is  among  the  very  greatest  mystics 
for  actual  attainment,  and  in  the  intellectual  exposition  of  his 
experience  he  is,  I believe,  unrivalled  for  penetration,  clarity  and 
harmony.  Many  mystics  have  been  too  apt  to  describe  their 
experience  in  a confused  and  disordered  manner.  Magnificent 
passages  abound,  but  there  is  a lack  of  coherence  and  methodical 
exposition.  With  the  Spanish  School  of  mysticism  this  defect  of 
method  was,  for  the  first  time,  largely  overcome.  In  the  German 
School,  and  especially  in  Eckhart,  there  is  indeed  a metaphysic. 
But  the  Spaniards  are  the  first  to  provide  a methodical  description 
and  arrangement  of  the  forms  and  stages  of  mystical  experience 
based  on  accurate  psychological  observation  and  distinction. 
Naturally  this  scientific  treatment  is  imperfect.  Human  language 
can  never  be  free  from  ambiguity  and  obscurity,  when  it  describes 
an  experience  so  transcendent  of  the  images  and  concepts  of  our 
natural  life  and  knowledge.  But  it  is  here  attempted  for  the 
first  time,  and  with  no  small  degree  of  success.  After  this  period 
there  is  indeed  an  exaggeration  in  the  opposite  direction  to  the  old 
disorder,  an  over-systematisation  of  mystical  states  and  stages  of 
union  beyond  the  possibility  of  real  distinction  by  concepts  and 
conceptual  terminology.  The  Spaniards,  whose  supreme  repre- 
sentative is  St  John  of  the  Cross,  keep  the  golden  mean  between 
these  two  extreme  methods  of  mystical  exposition,  lack  of  system 
and  unreal  schematisation.  Where  St  John  is  silent,  his  silence  is 
supplied  by  Saint  Teresa  and  by  another  Spanish  writer,  as  yet 
hardly  known,  a Carmelite  nun,  Mother  Cecilia.  In  my  opinion 
her  work  is  of  an  extraordinarygvalue,  both  for  her  attainment  and 
for  her  exposition.  Lest  it  be  objected  that  the  doctrine  of  these 
mystics  is  not  derived  from  their  experience,  but  from  thejdog- 
matic  teaching  of  their  Church,  I have  shown  in  a final  chapter 
that  Richard  Jefferies,  despite  his  intellectual  atheism,  bears 


PREFACE  13 

witness  as  a mystic  in  the  same  sense.  Nevertheless,  though  I am 
convinced,  and  hope  in  this  Book  to  have  proved,  that  there  is  a 
philosophy  or  theology  derivable  from  the  data  of  mystical  experi- 
ence, this  theology  is  too  exceptional  in  its  attainment,  too  obscure 
in  its  mode  and  too  incomplete  in  its  nature  to  suffice  by  itself  for 
the  religious  need  of  mankind.  It  requires  to  be  supplemented 
by  a metaphysic  of  natural  experience  and  of  discursive  reasoning. 
Both  these  require  the  further  supplement  of  a Divine  revelation. 
As  a Catholic  I believe  that  this  revelation  is  given  to  us  in  the 
de  fide  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  this  revealed 
doctrine,  though  it  has  neither  caused  nor  conditioned  the  essential 
deliverance  of  mystical  experience,  has  confirmed  and  supple- 
mented its  utterance.  Catholic  theology  has  also  interpreted 
mystical  experience  by  guarding  against  false  interpretations 
derived  from  other  external  sources,  and  by  providing  the  mystic 
with  an  accurate  vehicle  of  expression,  which  he  recognises  as 
faithful  to  his  experience,  and  to  which,  therefore,  he  in  turn  lends 
the  sanction  of  his  vision. 

For  lack  of  this  traditional  medium  of  expression  non-Catholic 
mystics  have  often  been  driven  to  speak  in  idioms  peculiar  to 
themselves  and  difficult  to  interpret.  Bohme  was  compelled  to 
adopt  the  terminology  of  alchemy,  which  has  involved  his  doctrine 
in  a very  considerable  and  quite  unnecessary  obscurity.  Blake, 
by  employing  a language  altogether  his  own,  has  rendered  his 
message  well-nigh  unintelligible.  Moreover,  Catholic  doctrine 
has  shown  the  application  of  the  data  of  mystical  experience  in 
wider  spheres  than  that  experience  could  of  itself  attain.  Thus 
both  theologies  are  confirmed  by  their  mutual  harmony. 

My  quotations  from  St  John  of  the  Cross  are  taken  from  Lewis’s 
translation  corrected  from  the  Edicion  Critica,  in  which,  for  the 
first  time,  we  possess  the  accurate  text  of  the  Saint.  Those  from 
Mother  Cecilia  are  of  my  own  translation  from  the  Spanish.  My 
obligations  to  mystical  writers,  to  theologians,  philosophers  and 
men  of  letters  are,  I think,  acknowledged  in  the  course  of  the 
Book.  I will  only  mention  here  the  name  of  Baron  Von  Hiigel,  to 
whom,  though  I do  not  accept  all  his  positions,  my  debt  is  of 
peculiar  magnitude.  But  I cannot  leave  unmentioned  the  name 
of  a friend,  to  whom  I owe  most  valuable  and  most  fruitful  sug- 
gestions. One,  indeed,  of  these  has  worked  itself  out  in  my  mind 
among  the  idees  directrices  of  this  Book.  I refer  to  Mr  H.  C. 
Dawson.  In  a previous  work  I had  occasion  to  acknowledge  my 


14  PREFACE 

great  intellectual  debt  to  Mr  Dawson.  I am  very  glad  of  this 
opportunity  to  repeat  my  acknowledgement. 

A final  word  of  personal  explanation.  I am  not  a mystic,  only 
a mystical  philosopher.  By  temperament  I am  a book-and- 
garden  Epicurean.  But  the  stern  truth  of  the  Carmelite  mystic 
has,  almost  against  my  will,  convinced  my  understanding.  For 
truth  is  determined  neither  by  temperament  nor  by  desire,  but  by 
facts.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  a theoretical  exposition.  It  is 
possible  to  be  a mystical  philosopher  in  an  arm-chair,  to  be  a 
mystic  only  on  a cross.  Certainly  every  Christian  not  wholly  self- 
alienated  from  supernatural  union  with  God  is  a potential  mystic. 
For  mysticism  is  the  blossoming  of  Christianity,1  the  epiphany  of 
supernatural  life.  But  this  potency  cannot  be  actualised,  this 
epiphany  cannot  come  to  pass  save  through  the  passion  and  death 
of  the  lower,  earthy,  merely  natural  life.  Thus  the  way  of  Divine 
union,  of  which  the  mystical  way  is  but  an  advanced  stage,  is 
necessarily  a way  of  the  cross.  A soul  can  leave  that  way  or  halt 
at  its  beginning.  By  study  of  the  mystics  I have  learned  of  the 
beauty  of  this  divine  way  to  God,  but  I have  learned  also  of  its 
pain.  The  mystic,  wearied  with  toil  and  scorched  with  heat,  is 
climbing  Mount  Nebo  with  Moses,  to  die  with  him  on  the  summit 
of  vision.  I linger  in  a comfortable  hotel  at  Sittim,  with  a magnifi- 
cent view  of  the  Hills  of  Moab  and  a shady  corner  of  garden  under 
the  palms.  There  I sit  in  sight  of  the  Holy  mountain,  its  steep 
ascent  of  crags,  its  summit  red  in  the  rays  of  the  sun.  From  the 
Mountain  of  God  I cannot  turn  away  my  eyes.  But  I dare  not 
leave  the  garden.  Yonder  peak  every  soul  must  climb  to  see  God. 
For  this  mountain  is  also  the  mount  of  purgatory.  The  mystic 
makes  the  ascent  in  this  iife.  Blessed  is  he.  He  and  he  alone 
sees  the  vision.  If  I did  not  know  that^this  Book  would  never 
have  been  written.  But  the  price  of  the  vision  is  mortal  pain. 
As  each  is  called,  each  must  choose  his  response. 

Sheringham,  October,  1919. 


1 The  non-Christian  mystic  is  thereby  shown  to  be  a member  of  Christ — an 
implicit  unconscious  Christian. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 


INTRODUCTORY  .... 

THE  DIVINE  IMMANENCE 

UNITY  OF  GOD  .... 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  III  . 

THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD 

INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 
THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD 

VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  . . ' 

THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  .... 

THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  .... 

MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  PREVIOUS  TO  THE  NIGHT 
SPIRIT  ..... 


OF 


X.  THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT 

XI.  PURGATORY  AND  THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT 

XII.  THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  : OR  MYSTICAL  MARRIAGE 

APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  XII  .... 

XIII.  ON  THE  MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

XIV.  THE  WITNESS  OF  NATURE  MYSTICISM  TO  THE  TEACHING 

OF  CATHOLIC  MYSTICISM  STUDIED  IN  THE  MYSTICISM 
OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  . 


XV.  ST  JOHN  THE  POET 
EPILOGUE 


17 

33 

40 

54 

56 

85 

96 

140 

182' 

207 

241 

264 

285 

299 

357 

360 


371 

389 

402 


i5 


Note. — Where  an  asterisk  appears  in  the  text  it  indicates  that  a note 
ivill  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  book. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

Disillusioned  of  the  past  and  the  present,  men  are  fivenmAoM 


ERR  A TA 


Page 

14,  Ime  30. 

insert  comma  after  that. 

31  » 24- 

read  matter-handling. 

47  „ 24- 

delete  of. 

92  „ 24. 

for  vegetive  read  vegetative. 

102  „ 14- 

for  sacred  read  secret. 

5) 

144  » 5- 

for  greater  read  greatest. 

)) 

174,  footnote  2. 

read  tvepyeia  dKiurjcrias. 

178,  line  38. 

for  to  the  spiritual  read  of  the  spiritual. 

>5 

191  » 3°- 

read  The  evil  of  desire  is  the  commonplace  of 
Buddhism. 

)) 

208,  lines  1, 4. 

for  Spirit  read  spirit. 

) ? 

218,  line  2. 

delete  from. 

} ) 

235  »>  '4- 

for  coficeived  read  received. 

)) 

244  » 39- 

insert  comma  after  quiet. 

289  „ 36. 

insert  comma  after  effected  and  delete  any  but. 

)) 

295,  lines  28-30. 

for  he  and  his  read  it  and  its. 

)J 

382,  line  20. 

for  atheist  read  a theist. 

. J5 

405  „ 38- 

delete  comma  after  limited. 

_ v y i v/JlllWUUllg 

two,  1 he  Spiritual  Canticle  of  the  Soul  and  The  Living  Flame  of 
Love,  are  concerned  with  that  supreme  union  itself.  The  teaching 
of  these  four  great  books  will  be  the  foundation  of  all  I have  to 
say  in  this  exposition  of  the  philosophy  of  mysticism.  I shall, 
however,  make  large  use  also  of  three  other  treatises.  One  of 
these,  The  Obscure  Knowledge  of  God,  may  perhaps  be  the  work  of 
St  John  himself,  the  remaining  two,  The  Treatise  on  the  Trans- 
formation of  the  Soul  in  God  and  The  Treatise  on  the  Union  of  the 


18  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Soul  with  God,  are  by  a Carmelite  nun,  Mother  Cecilia  of  the 
Nativity.  These  treatises  belong  to  the  Johannine  1 school  of 
Mysticism,  and  serve  to  throw  light  on  certain  points  left  obscure 
in  the  four  authentic  treatises  of  the  Saint. 

I have  entitled  this  work  ‘ The  Philosophy  of  Mysticism.” 
I disclaim  by  the  very  title  any  practical  scope.  Mysticism  as 
an  art,  as  a state  of  prayer,  as  the  practical  way  to  Union  with 
God,  can  only  be  taught  by  one  himself  experienced  in  this  way. 
My  concern  as  an  outsider  is  with  the  theoretical  aspect  of  the 
matter,  with  mysticism  as  a theory,  or  science,  with  “ mystology,” 
if  I may  coin  the  expression.  Every  art  presupposes  a body  of 
theoretical  truth  on  which  it  is  based.  The  higher  the  art,  the 
greater  in  depth  and  scope  must  the  underlying  truth  be.  If 
there  be  an  art  or  practical  way  by  which  the  human  soul  is 
united  to  God,  that  art  or  way  must  be  based  on,  and  must  reveal 
to  us,  truth  about  God.  The  philosopher,  the  student  of  religion, 
above  all  the  Christian  apologist,  cannot  afford  to  neglect  the  body 
of  truths  about  God,  the  Supreme  Reality,  which  underlies  the 
practice  of  mysticism.  Indeed,  metaphysics  have  always  tended 
to  pass  over  into  mysticism,  or  at  least  into  the  theory  of  mysti- 
cism. For  the  subject-matter  of  metaphysics  is  ultimate  reality. 
Hence  that  art  or  practice  whose  end  is  union  with  ultimate  reality 
must,  if  it  be  a true  art,  a fruitful  practice,  yield  the  most  valuable 
data  for  metaphysical  knowledge  of  that  reality.  A practice 
based  on  a false  view  of  reality  would  prove  barren  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  falsehood  in  its  underlying  theory.  The 
practice  of  mysticism  has,  however,  been  supremely  fruitful.  Its 
adepts  have,  as  they  declare  with  a unanimity  of  consent  that 
transcends  all  divergence  of  philosophy  or  creed,  attained  the 
union  with  the  Absolute  of  which  they  were  in  search.  Therefore 
at  their  hands  we  must  expect  the  fullest  and  deepest,  and  there- 
fore the  truest,  knowledge  of  the  ultimate  reality  that  is  attain- 
able, apart  from  positive  revelation.2  As  we  shall  see,  the  practice 
of  mysticism  is  largely  passive — the  reception  of  an  experience 
given  from  without.  Mysticism,  or  mystical  theology  in  the 
strict  sense,  is  this  experience,  the  philosophy  of  mysticism,  or 
“ mystology,”  is  its  intellectual  interpretation. 


1 The  term  Johannine  is  throughout  this  book,  save  where  the  contrary  is 
expressly  stated,  the  adjective  of  St  John  of  the  Cross,  not  of  the  Evangelist. 

2 Even  that  revelation  was  itself  largely  given  through  the  medium  of 
mystical  experience. 


INTRODUCTORY  19 

What  then  is  this  mystical  experience  that  is  to  yield  the  highest 
knowledge  of  ultimate  reality  ? The  full  answer  to  this  question 
is,  of  course,  the  entire  teaching  of  mystical  philosophy.  Never- 
theless, that  we  may  attain  at  the  outset  some  clear  notion  of  the 
true  meaning  of  a term  often  most  loosely  applied,  I will  define 
mysticism  or  mystical  experience  as  a union-intuition  of  God. 
In  chap.  xvi.  of  Book  II.  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel, 
St  John  of  the  Cross  says  : “In  the  high  state  of  the  union  of 
love  God  . . . communicates  Himself  to  the  pure  and  naked 
essence  of  the  soul,  through  the  will.”  This  union,  however, 
normally  involves  a certain  direct  consciousness  of  its  object.1 
Mystical  union  is  thus  a union  of  the  entire  soul  through  the  will, 
involving  a consciousness  of  the  object  of  union.  This  conscious- 
ness is  an  intuition — by  which  is  meant  an  immediate  appre- 
hension of  reality,  as  opposed  to  an  axiom  or  a conclusion  of 
discursive  reasoning,  whose  object  is  reality  apprehended  mediately 
through  concepts  abstracted  from  sensible  experience.  Intuition, 
on  the  other  hand,  being  thus  an  immediate  apprehension,  is 
essentially  not  a concept  or  idea.  The  intuition  that  is  the  con- 
scious concomitant  of  mystical  union  is,  of  course,  superrational 
above  the  conceptual  understanding  of  discursive  reasoning,  not 
an  infrarational  sensation.  There  is,  however,  an  intuition  or 
instinctive  apprehension  which  is  found  in  animals  and  indeed 
in  man  in  the  inferior  regions  of  his  soul  life.  This  lower  intuition 
or  instinct  has  been  wrongly  confused,  by  M.  Bergson,  with  the 
superrational  intuition.2  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  essentially  in- 
frarational. Though  it  apprehends  reality  more  directly  than 
discursive  reasoning,  it  does  not  penetrate  to  so  deep  a level. 

1 As  will  be  seen  later,  in  the  certain  phases  of  mystical  union  this  positive 
consciousness  is  temporarily  replaced  by  a strange  negative  consciousness,  whose 
character  will  hereafter  be  discussed. 

2 On  page  339  of  L’ Evolution  Crealricice,  8th  ed.,  M.  Bergson  seems  indeed  to 
conj  oin  infrarational  intuition  in  its  form  of  sense-perception  with  discursive  reason 
in  opposition  to  superrational  intuition  there  distinctly  recognised.  Neverthe- 
less even  in  this  passage  the  former  intuition  is  supposed  to  pass  into  the  latter  as 
violet  into  red  through  the  colour  scale.  Moreover  reason  is  unduly  opposed  here 
also  to  the  superrational  intuition.  If  we  consider  the  general  tenor  of  M. 
Bergson’s  philosophy,  we  shall  find  that  it  amply  bears  out  the  criticism  of  my 
text.  The  superrational  intuition  of  the  philosophy  of  the  future  is  to  be  ob- 
tained by  a return  to  the  instinct  intuition  element  of  the  evolutionary  nisus 
which  has  hitherto  been  most  highly  developed  in  certain  insects.  That  the 
higher  intuition  is  rather  a development  and  eminent  inclusion  of  the  discursive 
reasoning  which  it  transcends  is  a truth  ignored — -or  almost  ignored — -by  the 
Bergsonian  philosophy. 


20  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Mystical  intuition  is  the  highest  form  of  superrational  intuition, 
for  it  is  the  consciousness  of  union  with  the  Infinite  Being  of  God, 
Who,  as  we  shall  see,  is  beyond  the  definition  of  the  essentially 
limited  concepts  of  the  discursive  reason.1  I also  name  the 
Object  of  the  mystical  union-intuition  God,  not,  with  Miss 
Evelyn  Underhill,  Reality  with  a big  R.  My  reason  for  so  doing 
is  not  merely  that  as  a thcist  and  as  a Catholic  I know  the  ultimate 
reality  to  be  a personal  God,  but  because  no  other  term  expresses 
so  well  the  Object  of  mystical  experience,  as  revealed  in  that 
experience  itself.  To  use  the  term  Reality  is  to  say  too  little. 
Everything  that  is — is  Real — if  it  were  not  real  it  would  be 
nothing.  Every  being,  in  so  far  as  it  is  or  has  being,  is  or  has 
reality.  If  anything  is  more  real  than  another,  it  is  because  it 
has  more  being.  If  we  say  Supreme  or  Ultimate  Reality  our 
definition  will  indeed  be  correct,  but  unnecessarily  vague  in  its 
formulation.  The  most  real  is  that  which  has  most  being. 
Spirit,  however,  has  more  being  than  matter,  the  personal  than 
the  impersonal.  There  is  more  being  and  therefore  greater 
reality  in  a living  soul  than  in  a lifeless  stone ; more  in  a human 
personality  than  in  an  impersonal  force  ; more  in  love  than  in 
hunger ; more  in  my  friend  than  in  my  walking-stick.  Therefore  , 
ultimate  or  absolute  reality  must  have  more  being  than  less 
ultimate  realities,  must  be  above,  and  more  than  the  highest 
beings  that  are  but  derivative  and  contingent,  not  lower  and  less 
than  they.  If,  however,  the  ultimate  reality,  the  Absolute  Being 

1 Corresponding  with  these  two  forms  of  intuition — below  and  above  the  level 
of  discursive  reason  are  the  two  passions  (Erotes)  or  non-rational  loves.  The 
lower  is  natural  desire  in  its  varied  forms,  the  force  of  life  reaching  out  blindly  and 
instinctively.  The  higher  is  the  love  of  the  will  reaching  out  towards  an  un- 
limited Good  beyond  the  conception  of  reason.  The  history  of  religion  often 
shows  us  mystical  or  quasi-mystical  cults  and  doctrines  taking  over  or  spiritual- 
ising— as  expressions  and  vehicles  of  the  higher  Eros,  cults  and  myths  originally 
deifications  of  the  lower  Eros.  Thus  did  Orphism  adopt  the  cult  of  the  Wine  God 
Dionysus,  spiritualising  the  infrarational  impulse  set  free  by  intoxication  into 
superrational  ecstasy.  (Cf.  also  the  mythology  of  the  Sirens  as  explained  by 
Miss  Jane  Harrison,  Prolegomena  to  the  Study  of  Greek  Religion,  pp.  197-207.) 
Since,  however,  such  mysticism  lacks  the  guidance  of  revelation  and  the  elevat- 
ing dispensation  of  sanctifying  grace  the  lower  Eros,  become  in  fallen  man  a per- 
verse concupiscence,  pollutes  and  distorts  the  higher  nisus  towards  spiritual  good, 
ever  dragging  it  back  to  its  own  level.  Hence  that  unhappy  confusion  or  mingling 
of  lower  and  higher  impulses  and  loves  which  marks  so  many  forms  of  non- 
Christian  mysticism,  a confusion  rendered  easy,  as  is  the  analogous  Bergsonian 
confusion  of  the  intuitional  aspects,  by  the  common  element  of  divergence  from 
discursive  reason  present  alike  in  the  lower  Eros  of  life-instinct  and  in  the  reason- 
transcending  force  of  spiritual  love. 


INTRODUCTORY  21 

were  material  or  impersonal,  an  unconscious  force  for  example, 
it  would  have  less  being  or  reality  than  the  human  soul.  There- 
fore, ultimate  reality,  the  Absolute,  must  be  above,  not  below, 
finite  and  dependent  spirits.  It  must  be  supra-  not  infra-personal. 

We  must  therefore  maintain  that  the  nature  of  Ultimate 
Reality,  though  the  ground  of  all  being,  is  such  that  it  is  more 
adequately  represented  by  the  spiritual  and  the  personal  than  by 
the  material  and  the  impersonal.  Moreover,  the  union  between  the 
mystic  and  Ultimate  Reality  is  essentially  personal  in  character — a 
union  through  love,  a union  moreover  more  satisfactory  of  our 
need  for  personal  communion  than  is  any  union  with  a fellow- 
man.  If,  however,  this  union-intuition  were  without  a supra- 
personal  Object  it  would  be  less  personal  and  less  satisfactory 
than  union  through  love  with  a fellow-man.  Moreover,  as  we 
shall  see  in  the  course  of  this  book,  mystical  experience  in  its 
higher  stages  does  reveal  certain  characters  of  its  Object,1  and 
these  the  characters  of  a personal  Spirit.  We  have  therefore 
good  ground,  simply  as  students  of  mysticism,  to  affirm  that  the 
Object  of  mystical  experience  is  a Being  Who  is  more  truly 
represented  by  and  is  more  akin  to  the  Spiritual  and  the  Personal 
than  to  the  Material  and  the  Impersonal. 

Nor  can  we  with  the  Monist  suppose  that  Ultimate  Reality 
is  simply  the  totality  of  matter  and  consciousness,  of  the  personal 
and  the  impersonal.  Such  an  absolute  Monism  would  involve 
the  ascription  of  equal  reality  and  ultimacy  to  all  its  constituent 
elements.  We  should  therefore  touch  ultimate  reality  in  equal 
measure  in  each  and  every  portion  of  our  experience.  We  should 
touch  this  ultimate  reality  as  truly,  and  participate  in  it  as  fully, 
in  eating  as  in  scientific  discussion  or  aesthetic  intuition,  and  as 
truly  in  all  these  as  in  prayer  and  in  mystical  intuition.  It  is, 
however,  of  the  very  essence  of  mystical  experience  that  it  is  a 
penetration  to  a deeper  level,  the  attainment  of  a greater,  fuller 
and  more  ultimate  reality  than  is  afforded  by  any  other  form  of 
human  experience.  Hence  the  object  of  this  experience  is  not 
simply  the  sum  total  of  all  being  and  experience,  but  the  under- 
lying ground  of  all  the  lesser  realities  and  more  superficial  levels 
touched  by  the  other  forms  of  experience.  The  pantheist  will, 
however,  urge  that  this  ultimate  reality  is  the  true  being  of  the 
less  ultimate  and  is  manifested  of  necessity  in  and  through  these. 
But  we  should  then  be  compelled  to  admit  that  it  is  conditioned 

1 Not,  however,  as  they  are  in  Him.  See  Chapter  IV. 


22  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

and  so  limited  by  the  limits  of  these  lower  forms  of  being  in 
which  It  is  of  necessity  manifested.  But  the  most  complete 
“ personality  ” is  the  human  soul  that  is  least  dependent  on 
creatures  lower  than  itself.  Therefore  the  suprapersonal  Reality 
must  be  wholly  independent  of  beings  lower  than  Himself. 
Moreover,  as  we  shall  see  later,  the  object  of  the  mystical  in- 
tuition is  essentially  experienced  as  transcendent  and  free  from 
all  limits,  as  the  wholly  Unlimited.  Hence  the  limited  cannot 
be  its  necessary  self-manifestation.  In  vain  does  Pantheistic 
mysticism  seek  to  evade  this  difficulty  by  teaching  the  complete 
illusoriness  or  non-reality  of  the  limited,  of  the  relative  as  opposed 
to  the  Absolute.1  Even  if  this  were  the  case,  ultimate  Reality, 
the  Absolute,  would  be  conditioned  and  limited  by  its  necessary 
causation  of  this  illusion,  that  is  of  the  limited  appearance,  whose 
phenomenal  existence  at  least  is  undeniable.  Moreover  this 
denial  of  reality  to  the  limited  or  relative  contradicts  our  lower 
experience,  whose  validity  within  its  own  limited  sphere  is  as 
immediately  given  as  is  the  validity  of  the  mystical  experience 
itself.  For  this  lower  experience  is  a real  experience  of  a real 
object.  Otherwise  it  would  be  non-existent.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  if  we  would  accept,  as  we  must  accept,  the  entire  content 
of  experience  in  all  its  forms,  both  mystical  and  non-mystical  alike, 
as  given  immediately  in  those  experiences  and  mediately  through 
their  abstraction,  comparison  and  combination,  we  must  grant 
that  the  finite  objects  of  our  ordinary  experience  are  possessed  of 
some  degree  of  reality,  and  also  that  the  ultimate  Reality  which 
is  the  object  of  mystical  experience  is  wholly  free  from  their 
limitations.  But  the  acceptance  of  these  truths  demands  the 
acceptance  of  a theistic  as  opposed  to  a pantheistic  interpretation 
of  the  nature  of  ultimate  reality.  Neither  can  we  identify  the 
Object  of  mystical  experience  with  the  duree  which,  according 
to  the  system  of  M.  Bergson,  underlies  and  is  opposed  to  the  more 
unreal,  indeed  artificial,  time  series.  If  the  mystic  were  en 
rapport  with  a mere  duree  or  even  with  an  impersonal  life  therein 
existent,  there  would  be  no  ground  for  his  exultant  certitude  of 
communion  with  a Personal  Being  infinitely  superior  to  his  own 
personality.  Moreover,  one  essential  feature  of  mystical  experi- 
ence— or  at  least  of  certain  forms  of  that  experience — is  that  it  is 
a consciousness  or  apprehension  not  of  any  kind  of  succession 
or  duration  but  of  Eternity — the  toturn  simul  equally  present 

1 So  teach  certain  schools  of  philosophic  idealism. 


INTRODUCTORY  23 

to  all  time,  the  Everlasting  Now  in  which  all  time  exists  and  is 
comprehended,  both  clocktime  and  soultime  alike.  This  is  well 
brought  out  by  Baron  von  Hiigel,  both  in  Eternal  Life  and  in 
Mystical  Religion.  In  the  Autobiography  of  Bl.  Henry  Suso,  a 
rapture  granted  to  that  great  mystic  is  described  as  “ a breaking 
forth  of  the  sweetness  of  eternal  life,  felt  as  present  in  the  stillness 
of  unvarying  contemplation  ” (Suso’s  Autobiography,  trs.  Fr. 
Knox,  ed.  1913,  p.  10.  Burns  and  Oates).  “I  have  observed,” 
writes  Lucie  Christine,  “that  during  the  prayer  of  passivity  and 
especially  in  the  state  of  union  the  soul  loses  all  sense  of  the 
duration  of  time.  . . . There  is  one  single  moment  only  . . . the 
soul  being  raised  to  that  state  lives  according  to  the  mode  of  life 
in  Eternity,  where  time  is  no  more,  neither  past  nor  present,  but 
one  eternal  Now  ” ( Spiritual  Journal,  Eng.  trs.,  p.  52).  The  well- 
known  lines  of  Henry  Vaughan,  perhaps  based  on  an  actual 
experience,  are  a most  beautiful  and  at  the  same  time  a most 
clear  and  concise  expression  of  the  mystical  experience  of  eternity. 

I saw  Eternity  the  other  night, 

Like  a great  ring  of  pure  and  endless  light, 

All  calm,  as  it  was  bright ; 

And  round  beneath  it,  Time  in  hours,  days,  years, 

Driven  by  the  spheres 
Like  a vast  shadow  moved. 

Vaughan,  The  World. 

It  is,  however,  impossible  to  identify  the  experience  of  eternity 
with  an  experience  of  a successive  duree.  Nor  yet  is  the 
Ultimate  Reality  apprehended  in  mystical  experience  a stream 
of  Becoming,  an  elan  vital  pushing  its  way  onwards  and  outwards 
whether  aimlessly  or  aimfully  through  an  opposing  matter.  For 
just  as  the  object  of  mystical  intuition  is  given  as  eternal,  so  is  it 
given  as  absolutely  perfect  and  in  complete  rest.  All  the  mystics 
are  agreed  that  their  experience  is  of  this  kind.  Moreover,  the 
object  of  mysticism  is  the  infinite,  the  unlimited,  and  Becoming 
is  essentially  limited.  The  object  of  mysticism  is  fulness  that  is 
perfection  of  being,  whereas  Becoming  is  incomplete  and  im- 
perfect, being  constituted  by  being  and  not  being.  Indeed,  the 
goal  of  mysticism  has  ever  been  escape  from  strife  to  rest,  from 
flux  to  permanence,  from  becoming  to  pure  Being.  Certainly 
the  object  apprehended  by  the  mystic  is  an  activity — but  an 
activity  that  is  rest,  because  it  has  no  obstacle  to  overcome  nor 
deficiency  to  satisfy  a life  that  is  so  full,  as  to  need  no  complement 


24  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

for  its  preservation  or  increase.  Thus  does  the  object  of  mystical 
experience  asfgiven  in  that  experience  itself  exclude  the  limita- 
tions alike  of  an  external  and  hostile  matter  and  of  any  kind  of 
becoming.  Mysticism,  therefore,  has  not  found  its  philosopher 
in  M.  Bergson.  Enough  surely  has  been  said  to  show  that  we 
need  have  no  hesitation  in  terming  the  object  of  mystical  experi- 
ence, not  reality  nor  even  ultimate  reality,  but  God.  If,  however, 
any  reader  prefer  it,  let  him  by  all  means  keep  for  the  present  to 
the  less  definite  terminology.  The  following  chapters  on  the 
nature  of  the  object  of  mystical  experience  as  revealed  in  that 
experience  will  prove  it  to  possess  precisely  those  characters  which 
constitute  the  theistic  and  Christian  understanding  of  the  term 
God,  and  will,  therefore,  be  a fuller  argument  for  the  identity 
of  the  former  with  the  latter.  Till  then  let  him,  if  he  will,  define 
the  object  of  mystical  experience  as  the  ultimate  Reality.  I prefer 
to  term  it  from  the  outset  what  it  will  prove  in  truth  to  be,  God 
— the  God  not  of  pantheism  or  semi-pantheism  but  of  Christian 
theism. 

Now,  however,  I have  to  face  a more  fundamental  objection 
to  my  definition,  the  objection  that  this  mystical  intuition  or 
experience  is  false,  a delusion  from  beginning  to  end.  If  the 
objector  means  by  this  that  no  man  has  ever  had  any  such  ex- 
perience, and  that  all  those  who  claim  it  are  liars,  he  is  like  a blind 
man  who  should  affirm  that  all  those  who  claim  vision  are  liars. 
As  well  should  the  inartistic  man  deny  that  the  artist  perceives 
the  beauty  and  significance  that  to  him  are  wholly  imperceptible. 
Doubtless,  however,  he  will  mean  that  this  mystical  experience  is 
purely  subjective — due  to  the  physical  or  psychical  condition  of 
the  recipient.  It  is  urged  by  many  psychologists  that  the  psycho- 
physical condition  of  the  mystic  fully  explains  his  experience, 
which  has  thus  no  objective  validity.  This  explanation  would 
make  the  experiences  of  a St  Paul  and  of  a St  Teresa  the  fruits 
of  a nervous  derangement.  This  materialistic  explanation  is, 
however,  opposed  to  the  axiom  that  the  effect  cannot  be  greater 
than  its  cause.  A psychical  phenomenon  may  be  conditioned, 
but  cannot  be  wholly  caused,  by  a physical  fact.  The  more 
common,  and  assuredly  the  more  powerful  attack  upon  the  trans- 
subjective  validity  of  mystical  experience  proceeds  from  the 
psychology  that  would  explain  mystical  experience  as  simply  a 
manifestation  of  the  subconscious,  subliminal  or  subjective  mind 
or  self.  The  existence  of  this  subconsciousness  has  indeed  been 


INTRODUCTORY  25 

amply  proved  by  modem  psychological  research.  The  evidence 
will  be  found  in  such  a book  as  Myers’  Human  Personality,  and 
substantially  the  same  teaching  is  expounded  in  a more  popular 
form  by  Hudson  in  his  Psychic  Phenomena.  No  candid  student 
of  these  works  can  doubt  the  existence  of  the  subconscious  or 
subliminal  mind,  that  is  to  say  of  a sphere,  aspect  or  function  of 
the  soul  normally  hidden  from  self-conscious  observation.  More- 
over there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  subliminal  sphere 
is  the  seat  of  mystical  experience.  For  the  central  depths  of  the 
soul  are  not  normally  above  the  threshold  of  consciousness : 
are,  therefore,  normally  subliminal.  But,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
these  depths  are  the  special  seat  of  the  Divine  Presence  and  Action 
in  the  soul,  since  they  are  the  most  remote  and  the  most  free  from 
the  conditions  of  sense,  and  are  thus  the  least  limited  by  the 
limitations  due  to  the  senses  and  their  material  data.  Therefore, 
when  the  Divine  Presence  and  Action  enter  the  field  of  conscious- 
ness, as  they  do  in  the  mystical  union-intuition,  the  normally 
subliminal  depth — the  subjective  mind — that  is  the  seat  of  that 
Presence  and  Action  is  also  revealed  through  the  Divine  Presence 
and  Action  therein.  Thus  the  subliminal  is  the  special  vessel 
and  organ  of  mystical  experience.  This  fact,  however,  is  by  no 
means  the  admission  that  mystical  experience  proceeds  simply 
and  entirely  from  the  subconscious  soul,  is  nothing  but  a subliminal 
uprush  into  the  field  of  normal  consciousness  due  to  autosuggestion. 
If  that  were  the  case  it  could  not  present,  as  it  does,  the  constant 
characteristic  of  a self-evident  experience  of  a Reality  other  and 
immeasurably  greater  than  the  self  revealed  in  normal  consciousness. 
Since  mystical  experience  thus  produces,  nay,  consists  in,  a self- 
evident  conviction  of  contact  with  an  objective  being  or  reality 
other  than  the  mystic  himself,  if  the  mystic  be  not  really  in  touch 
with  a Being  outside  himself,  his  entire  spiritual  life  is  based  upon 
an  experience  which  is  essentially  illusion  and  self-deception. 
Can  we  in  reason  believe  that  the  lives  and  work  of  the  mystics  are 
thus  the  fruit  of  illusion  and  hallucination  ? It  were  surely  as 
reasonable  a belief  that  the  achievements  of  art  and  science  are 
the  products  of  illusion.  Moreover,  the  result  of  illusion  must 
surely  be  the  detriment,  indeed  the  destruction,  of  the  soul’s 
higher  life,  in  proportion  to  the  closeness  of  relationship  between 
the  illusion  and  that  life.  Illusion  and  unreality  must  ever  pro- 
duce emptiness  and  death,  never  fulness  and  life.  The  result  of 
mystical  experience,  however,  has  been  the  growth  and  elevation 


26  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  life.  Hence  that  experience  cannot  be  illusory.  Moreover,  no 
function  of  the  soul  can  produce  wholly  out  of  itself  anything 
external  to  the  self.  The  understanding,  for  instance,  cannot 
know  any  external  object  which  has  not  first  been  presented  to  it 
from  without.  Therefore  the  subconscious  function  or  level  of 
the  soul  cannot  produce  out  of  itself  what  it  has  not  received 
either  from  the  conscious  level  or  from  stimuli — suggestions,  if  the 
term  be  preferred — received  subconsciously  from  a source  external 
to  the  self.  The  subliminal  mathematician,  for  example,  the 
“ mathematical  prodigy,”  is  in  subliminal  contact  with  an  ob- 
jective truth,  a reality  external  to  his  own  being  whether  supra- 
liminal or  subliminal  (see  Myers’  Human  Personality,  p.  60  sqq.). 
The  subconscious  self  is  no  conjurer’s  hat  which  can  produce  out 
of  itself  a rabbit  or  a palm-tree.  Indeed  Myers  himself  states 
distinctly  of  the  man  of  genius  that  “ from  his  subliminal  self  he 
can  only  draw  what  it  already  possesses.”  “ We  must  not,”  he 
continues,  “ assume  as  a matter  of  course  that  the  subliminal  region 
of  any  one  of  us  possesses  that  particular  sensitivity — that  specific 
transparency — which  can  receive  and  register  definite  facts  from 
the  unseen.  That  may  be  a gift  which  stands  as  much  alone  . . . 
in  the  subliminal  region,  as,  say,  a perfect  musical  ear  in  the 
supraliminal  ” ( Human  Personality,  p.  84).  The  mystic,  however, 
receives  in  and  from  his  experience  a satisfaction  of  consciousness 
and  will,  a fulness  of  spiritual  life  and  energy,  a certainty  of  com- 
munion with  an  ultimate  and  Divine  Reality  external  to  himself, 
that  is  in  obvious  excess  of  all  that  he  has  obtained  by  the  exer- 
tion of  his  conscious  faculties,  a reality  and  life  indefinitely  superior 
to  and  quite  other  than  the  knowledge  of  religious  truth  and  the 
force  of  spiritual  life  obtained  by  conscious  instruction  and  re- 
ligious exercises.  This  reality  and  life  must,  therefore,  have  been 
received  into  the  subconscious  depths  of  the  soul  from  a source 
external  to  the  soul. 

Again,  if  we  accept,  as  we  must,  the  testimony  of  the  mystic 
to  the  fact  of  his  experience  we  ought  to  admit  his  testimony 
to  its  nature  as  being  essentially  a self-evident  experience  of  a 
tran subjective  Reality.  Just  as  the  fact  of  sense  perception  carries 
with  it  an  immediate  certainty  of  the  existence  of  an  external 
object  of  that  perception,  so  also  does  mystical  experience  involve 
an  immediate  certainty  of  the  existence  of  an  external  object  of 
that  experience.  There  have  been,  indeed,  and  at  present  there 
are,  philosophers  who  deny  the  transubjective  validity  of  sense 


INTRODUCTORY  27 

perception.  Sucli  a scepticism,  however,  can  never  be  accepted 
by  the  unsophisticated  common-sense  of  mankind  at  large.  It  is 
surely  equally  irrational  to  refuse  similar  validity  to  the  experi- 
ence of  the  mystics,  which,  despite  its  comparative  rarity,  is  as  un- 
deniable as  the  fact  of  ordinary  sense  perception.1  The  objective 
validity  of  this  experience  is  indeed  being  realised  by  modern 
thinkers,  and  this  realisation  is  making  mysticism  more  popular 
to-day  than  it  has  been  for  a long  while  past.  Thus  the  late 
Professor  William  James,  despite  the  great  stress  he  lays  on  the 
subliminal,  distinctly  says  that  “ the  reference  of  a phenomenon 
to  a subliminal  self  need  not  exclude  the  notion  of  the  direct 
Presence  of  the  Deity.  The  notion  of  a subconscious  self 
ought  not  . . . to  be  held  to  exclude  all  notion  of  a higher  penetra- 
tion. If  there  be  higher  powers  able  to  impress  us,  they  may  get 
access  to  us  only  through  the  subliminal  doors  ” ( Varieties  of 
Religious  Experience,  pp.  242,  243).  Again,  in  his  summary  at  the 
end  of  his  book,  Professor  James  maintains  in  principle  the  truth 
of  this  objective  reference. 

It  is  true  that  the  term  of  this  reference  is  in  the  opinion  of 
James  a finite  being,  one  of  the  many  gods,  or  rather  demi-gods, 
of  pluralism.  This  interpretation,  however,  is  in  contradiction  to 
the  experience  which  it  professes  to  interpret.  Mystical  experi- 
ence is,  as  will  be  shown  later,  essentially  an  experience  of  com- 
munion with  the  unlimited,  the  Absolute,  the  All.2  So  much  is 
this  the  case  that,  as  the  history  of  mysticism  abundantly  proves, 
it  is  extremely  liable  to  misinterpretation  in  a Pantheistic  sense. 
Pantheism,  however,  is  the  antipodes  of  pluralism.  Hence  the 
pluralistic  explanation  of  James  is  arbitrary  in  the  extreme  ; was, 
in  fact,  not  a conclusion  reached  by  his  psychological  research  but 

1 We  must,  however,  beware  of  Miss  Evelyn  Underhill’s  attempt  (Mysticism, 
chap.i.)  to  contrast  the  objective  validity  of  mystical  experience  with  the  mainly 
subjective  and  illusory  character  of  sense  perception.  If  we  must  accept  St 
Teresa’s  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  Divine  Being  immediately  given  in  her 
mystical  intuition,  we  must  equally  accept  the  plain  man’s  testimony  to  the 
objective  existence  of  the  brick  wall  immediately  given  in  his  sensible  vision. 
The  world  of  common-sense  in  which  the  plain  man  is  at  home  is  real  within  its 
own  narrow  limits,  and  with  its  ownlimited  degree  of  reality,  although  the  world 
of  the  mystic  above  and  beyond  the  sphere  of  common-sense  is  a real  world  with- 
out limit  and  real  with  an  unlimited  reality.  Nothing  could  be  more  pernicious 
to  mysticism  than  attempts  to  found  it  on  a basis  of  philosophic  idealism  or 
scepticism. 

2 For  the  theistic  and  Catholic  understanding  of  this  term  see  the  following 
chapters. 


28  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

a metaphysical  “overbelief  ” violently  forced  upon  his  psychological 
conclusion.  That  conclusion  in  itself — namely,  that  mystical  ex- 
perience is  transubjective — is  surely  neither  invalidated  nor  even 
weakened  by  the  addition  of  this  alien  element  introduced  from  a 
false  metaphysic.*  Moreover,  Hudson  also  affirms  the  transub- 
jective validity  of  “ subconscious  ” experience.  It  is  already 
evident  from  the  quotation  made  above  that  the  great  pioneer  of 
subliminal  investigation  admitted  this  transubjective  validity.  A 
page  or  two  further  he  explicitly  recognises  this  validity  in  the 
case  of  the  mystical  experience  of  “ a Francis  ” and  “ a Teresa  ” 
(Human  Personality,  p.  89).  Doubtless  Myers’  interpretation  of 
the  Objective  Reality  given  in  their  experience  was  inadequate. 
Nevertheless  he  does  recognise  that  Reality,  as  other  than  the 
subliminal  self  of  the  mystic,  as  “a  spiritual  Universe  ” from 
which  “ the  soul  can  draw  strength  and  grace,”  “ a spirit  accessible 
and  responsive  to  the  soul  of  man  ” (p.  91).  Surely  enough, 
indeed  more  than  enough,  has  been  said.  Both  argument  and 
the  explicit  admission  of  investigators  of  the  subliminal  abund- 
antly prove  that  mystical  experience  cannot  be  the  merely  sub- 
jective experience  of  the  subconscious  self,  as  certain  anti-mystical 
psychologists  have  affirmed,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  apprehen- 
sion of  an  objective  spiritual  reality. 

Moreover,  this  reality  must  be  the  most  fundamental  attainable 
by  the  human  soul.  For  the  nobler  the  instrument  of  perception 
the  higher  is  the  reality  perceived.  Sight,  for  instance,  gives  more 
knowledge  of  reality  than  taste.  Discursive  reason  working  on 
the  data  of  sense  furnishes  a still  deeper  knowledge  of  reality. 
Surely  then  the  intuition  of  the  soul  through  its  highest  and  most 
spiritual  faculty  must  constitute  a far  higher  and  truer  appre- 
hension of  reality.  If  the  sense-conditioned  intuitions  of  the  artist 
or  poet  penetrate  depths  of  reality  hidden  from  the  discursive 
reason,  far  greater  and  more  ultimate  must  be  the  reality  attained 
by  the  intuition  of  the  mystic.  We  have,  however,  already  seen 
that  this  Reality  must  be  a Being  not  devoid  of  the  highest  char- 
acters of  our  own  spiritual  life,  that  is  a personal,  or,  more  strictly, 
a suprapersonal  God.  I therefore  repeat  and  emphasise  with  all 
confidence  as  the  starting-point  of  these  studies  my  definition  of 
Mysticism  or  mystical  experience  as  the  union-intuition  of  God, 
the  personal  God  believed  and  adored  by  theists  of  all  ages  and 
creeds.* 

We  must,  however,  beware  of  the  prevalent  error  of  supposing 


INTRODUCTORY  29 

that  all  mystics,  whatever  their  creed,  whether  Christian, 
Mohammedan  or  Buddhist,  teach  one  truth  wholly  identical  and 
differ  only  in  a terminology  externally  adopted.  It  is  true  that 
the  essential  mystical  experience  is  one  and  the  same  in  all.  But 
the  Catholic  will  maintain  that  (1)  since  the  Christian  revelation 
is  true,  its  doctrines  interpret  the  experience  of  the  mystics  better 
than  any  other,  and  (2)  that  Christian  mysticism  is  higher  and 
more  complete  than  any  other.  It  is  higher  in  that  Christian 
mysticism  has  led  its  followers  to  a higher  degree  of  union  with 
God  than  that  attained  by  non-Christian  mystics.  Such,  at  least, 
is  the  general  rule,  though  admitting  perhaps  of  exceptions. 
Moreover  the  Christian  mystic  has  possessed  a personal  love  of 
God  which  is  often  lacking  in  non-Christian  mysticism,  a love 
arising  out  of  devotion  to  the  Incarnate  Jesus.  It  is  more  com- 
plete because  Christian  mystics  have  often  been  granted  the 
direct  intuition  of  certain  distinctively  Christian  doctrines — e.g. 
the  intellectual  vision  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  Nevertheless  the 
experience  even  of  non-Christian  mystics  is,  as  such,  a true  ex- 
perience of  God — a union-intuition  of  Him. 

There  are  certain  principles  which  should  be  borne  constantly 
in  mind  while  reading  the  writings  of  the  mystics.  The  concepts 
of  discursive  reason,  based  as  they  are  on  the  data  of  sense,  are 
inadequate  to  express  the  purely  spiritual  reality  apprehended  in 
mystical  experience.  The  categories  of  the  reason  are  too  narrow 
to  grasp  it  and  break  down  under  the  attempt.  Any  formulation 
of  this  reality  in  terms  of  the  discursive  reason  must  therefore  be 
taken  simply  as  a signpost  to  a region  beyond  clear  rational  appre- 
hension. It  is,  moreover,  of  the  essence  of  conceptual  thought  to 
abstract.  The  discursive  reason  cannot  make  its  abstractions 
living  realities.  But  the  object  of  mystical  experience  is  not  an 
abstract  concept  or  a system  of  abstract  concepts,  but  a living 
reality.  Hence  mystical  experience  as  it  is  in  itself  is  transcendent 
of  all  the  images  and  concepts  of  the  understanding,  and  is,  there- 
fore, ineffable.  Moreover,  the  Unlimited  Godhead  cannot  be 
expressed  by  the  essentially  limited  operations  of  the  created 
intelligence.  Hence  the  mystics  unanimously  tell  us  that  their 
experience  can  only  be  understood  by  those  who  themselves 
possess  it/  “ It  would  be  foolishness,”  writes  St  John,  “ to  think 
that  the  language  of  love  and  the  mystical  intelligence  ...  can 
be  at  all  explained  in  words  of  any  kind  for  the  spirit  oUOur  Lord 
who  helps  our  weakness  . . . dwelling  in  us  makes  petitions  for 


30  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

us  with  groanings  unutterable  for  that  which  we  cannot  well 
understand  or  grasp  so  as  to  be  able  to  make  it  known.  . . . For 
who  can  describe  that  which  He  shows  to  loving  souls  in  whom 
He  dwells  ? Who  can  set  forth  in  words  that  which  He  makes 
them  feel  ? And,  lastly,  who  can  explain  that  for  which  they 
long  ? Assuredly  no  one  can  do  it ; not  even  they  themselves 
who  experience  it.  That  is  the  reason  why  they  use  figures  of 
special  comparisons  and  similitudes  ; they  hide  somewhat  of  that 
which  they  feel  and  in  the  abundance  of  the  Spirit  utter  secret 
mysteries  rather  than  express  themselves  in  clear  words”  (Pro- 
logue to  Spiritual  Canticle).  After  a truly  sublime  description 
of  the  supreme  mystical  union  Suso  adds  : “ Now,  daughter, 
remember  that  all  these  figures  and  images,  with  their  interpreta- 
tions, are  as  remote  from  and  unlike  the  formless  Truth  as  a black 
Moor  is  unlike  the  beautiful  sun  ” ( Autobiography , trs.  Knox, 
p.  283).  Discursive  reason  divides  truth  into  partial  aspects,  and 
those  partial  and  severed  aspects  cannot  by  that  thought  be  unified 
into  a complete  self-consistent  whole.  The  intuition  of  the  mystic, 
however,  which  is  a concomitant  of  the  unifying  love  of  the  will, 
apprehends  truth  in  its  totality  and  unity.  This  intuition  cannot, 
therefore,  be  consistently  formulated  in  terms  of  discursive  thought. 
Hence  the  concepts  and  images  which  the  mystics  are  compelled 
to  employ,  being  essentially  partial  and  incomplete,  can  never  be 
taken  exclusively.  In  so  far  as  they  are  positive  they  are  true 
— for  God  is  eminently  all  the  positive  being  of  creatures  (see 
C hapter  II).  In  so  far  as  they  are  negative,  excluding  by  their 
finitude  other  aspects  of  positive  being  or  reality,  they  are  false. 
Hence  we  must  always  so  understand  and  use  the  images  and 
concepts  of  the  mystics  as  not  thereby  to  deny  images  and  con- 
cepts apparently  opposed,  but  really  complementary.  Rather  we 
shall  find  that  the  only  possible  utterance  of  the  ultimate  truth 
given  in  mystical  intuition  is  a series  of  paradoxes.  There  is 
much  paradox  in  the  teaching  of  Our  Lord,  and  the  teaching  of 
the  mystics  can  only  be  expressed  in  that  form.  The  reader  will 
not  be  able  to  peruse  the  earlier  chapters  of  this  book  without  find- 
ing himself  in  face  of  such  a paradox  as  that  God  is  all  and  God  is 
also  nothing.  The  discussion  of  this  and  the  other  great  para- 
doxes of  mysticism  I leave  to  their  proper  place.  My  present 
object  is  simply  to  urge  the  student  of  mysticism  to  bear  in  mind 
that,  as  was  pointed  out  above,  its  Divine  Object  cannot  be  re- 
presented by  a logically  coherent  concept  or  conceptual  system. 


INTRODUCTORY  31 

Rather  is  it  the  fundamental  characteristic  of  mystical  truth — to 
be  so  transcendent  of  our  concepts  that  it  can  only  be  indicated — 
expressed  it  never  can  be — in  their  terms,  by  means  of  statements 
apparently  contradictory — that  is,  by  paradoxes — whose  opposition 
is  soluble  by  experience  alone,  not  by  discursive  reasoning.  If  we 
remember  this  we  shall  not  label  a mystic  pantheist  for  statements 
which,  taken  exclusively,  would  be  pantheistic,  as,  for  instance, 
certain  statements  of  St  John  or  St  Catherine  of  Genoa  concern- 
ing the  Divine  Immanence,  agnostic  for  statements  of  the  essential 
unintelligibility  of  God,  anti-sacramental  or  anti-incarnational  for 
statements  of  the  necessity  of  transcending  forms  and  images. 
On  the  contrary,  we  shall  see  in  all  such  statements  diverse  aspects 
of  one  infinite  truth,  as  positive,  true,  as  exclusive  of  complementary 
aspects,  false. 

Moreover,  the  same  spiritual  fact  or  process  will  be  described 
by  a series  of  different  sense-derived  images  which  regard  that 
one  fact  or  process  from  different  points  of  view.  The  mystical 
way  may,  for  instance,  be  regarded  as  a motion  upwards,  an 
ascent  from  creatures  to  God — as  a motion  downwards  into  ever- 
increasing  depths  of  increased  reality,  until  God  the  one  absolute 
Reality  is  reached — as  a motion  outwards  away  from  the  finite 
with  its  narrow  limits  to  the  infinite — as  a motion  inwards  to 
the  depth  of  the  central  ego  away  from  the  superficial  operations 
of  the  exterior  matter — handling  and  sense -conditioned  powers. 
It  may  be  conceived  positively,  as  the  ever-increasing  attainment 
of  reality,  or  negatively,  as  the  ever-increasing  denial  and  rejection 
of  the  unreal  or  negative  or  limiting  element  in  the  creature. 
It  may  be  described  by  means  of  impersonal  images  as — e.g. — 
the  consumption  of  wood  by  fire  ; the  impregnation  of  air  by 
light ; a plunge  deeper,  ever  deeper  into  the  sea  ; or  by  means 
of  personal  imagery  such  as  the  passionate  human  love  of  bride 
and  bridegroom ; the  simple  confidence  and  self-abandonment  of 
an  infant  to  its  mother.  All  these  images  are  complementary, 
not  mutually  exclusive,  and  are  true  only  in  their  positive  being, 
false  in  their  essential  limitations,  exclusions  and  negations.  In 
such  sense  is  the  teaching  of  the  mystics  to  be  understood. 

Indeed  the  whole  of  mystical  philosophy  is  an  attempt  to  express 
one  inexpressible  thing  in  a variety  of  wholly  inadequate  ways. 
Other  and  lower  branches  of  knowledge  have  a multitude  of 
distinct  things  to  tell  us  clearly  and  adequately  * ; a multiplicity 
united  only  at  a deeper  level  than  that  which  these  sciences 


32  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

attain.  “ Mystology  ” has  for  subject  matter  one  thing — - 
the  unum  necessarium — the  union  of  the  unified  soul  with  the 
absolute  unity  of  God.  Its  multiplicity  is  a manifold,  appre- 
hended as  the  diverse  aspects  of  an  underlying  unity,  the  manifold 
aspects  of  the  One  Divine  Being,  and  of  a soul  life  or  psychosis 
that  is  substantially  unified  in  the  soul,  when  fully  united  to  God, 
and  made  by  that  union  godlike.  Do  not,  therefore,  ask  of 
mystical  theology  a series  of  clear  definitions  and  of  distinct 
facts — her  work  is  not  to  express,  far  less  to  explain,  but  simply 
to  indicate  the  One  that  contains  an  inexhaustible  manifold  which 
is  mutually  inclusive,  not  mutually  exclusive,  and  in  virtue  of 
that  exclusion  discrete  and  distinct.  Never,  reader,  press  her 
images  or  her  similes  to  the  exclusion  of  contrary  images  or 
similes,  for  they  are,  as  we  saw  above,  true  only  as  positive,  not  as 
negative.  Pardon  much  repetition,  for  it  is  no  variety  of  distinct 
ideas  or  concepts,  but  one  supreme  reality  of  infinite  content  that 
is  to  be  set  within  the  vision  of  your  soul.  Above  all  remember 
that,  when  all  has  been  said,  nothing  has  been  said.  A finger  has 
pointed  the  way  to  a reality  which  reason,  and  much  less  its  verbal 
expression,  can  never  attain.  On  that  dark  Reality,  the  Infinite 
God,  fix  the  will  in  adoration  ; if  God  so  call  you,  in  desire  also, 
and  veil  the  eyes  of  reason  before  the  light  unapproachable,  the 
hidden  Presence,  that  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  all  the  truth  and 
being  made  known  by  philosophy  and  science,  by  art  and  practical 
experience.  So  shall  mysticism  indicate  to  you  the  first  principle 
on  which  these  depend,  and  falling  down  you  shall  adore  the  God 
Whom  on  earth  you  can  never  know  as  He  is,  and  shall  pray  for 
that  open  revelation  in  the  world  to  come. 

The  preliminary  chapters  of  this  book  will  consist  of  an  attempt 
to  expound  more  fully  the  matter  already  touched  upon  in  these 
prolegomena,  the  teaching  of  Christian  mysticism  as  represented 
by  St  John  of  the  Cross  and  Mother  Cecilia  as  to  the  nature  of 
God  as  the  Object  of  mystical  experience.  I shall  then  discuss 
the  essential  character  of  this  union-intuition  between  the  soul 
and  God,  the  chief  degrees  of  that  union,  the  principles  of  its 
action  and  the  way  by  which  the  soul  is  prepared  to  receive  it. 
This  preparation  will  be  discussed  not  with  a view  to  practice, 
but  as  a part  of  the  theoretical  study  of  the  nature  of  mystical 
experience.  I will  begin  by  considering  the  teaching  of  mysticism 
in  regard  to  the  Divine  Immanence  as  apprehended  in  the  mystical 
union-intuition. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  DIVINE  IMMANENCE 


The  Lord  appeared  in  a flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a hush, 
and  the  hush  was  on  fire  and  was  not  burnt.  Exodus  iii. 

Ex  quo,  per  quern,  in  quo  sunt  omnia. 

Lift  the  stone  and  then  thou  shall  find  Me : cleave  the  wood  and 
there  am  I.  Oxyrhyncus,  Logion. 


Mi  Amado  las  montahas. 

Los  valles  solitarios  nemorosos. 

Las  insulas  extrahas. 

Los  rios  sonorosos. 

El  silho  de  los  aires  amorosos. 

St  John  of  the  Cross, 

Spiritual  Canticle  of  the  Soul. 


The  doctrine  of  God  as  the  Object  of  mystical  experience  is  a 
doctrine  of  the  relation  to  Him  of  creatures  in  general  and  in  par- 
ticular of  the  human  soul.  Of  Himself,  as  He  is  in  Himself,  we 
have,  as  we  shall  see,  no  knowledge — that  is,  no  clear,  conceptual 
knowledge.  Even  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  revealed,  so  to 
speak,  inferentially  from  the  working  of  the  Three  Persons  in  our 
Redemption  and  Sanctification.  Moreover,  we  know  by  faith 
that  the  Godhead  is  possessed  in  Three  Persons,  but  not  what  is 
the  nature  of  the  Godhead  thus  possessed  or  the  nature  of  that 
triple  possession. 

God  is  the  first  cause  and  the  immanent  ground  of  all  creatures. 
The  existence  of  creatures  is  essentially  dependent.  They  are 
kept  in  being  by  the  conserving  will  of  God.  “ In  Him  we  live 
and  move  and  are.”  The  creature  may  be  regarded  under  two 
aspects — a positive  and  a negative.  By  the  very  fact  of  its 
creatureliness  the  creature  is  finite,  exclusive  of  other  beings — is 
not — as  well  as  is.  The  positive  being  of  the  creature  is  a copy 
of  some  aspect  of  the  Infinite  Being  of  God,  of  some  idea  of  the 
Divine  Mind.  Whatever  positively  is  in  the  creature  is  therefore 

33 


c 


34  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  God.  God  is  eminently  all  created  being.  Creatures,  because 
they  are  creatures,  are  essentially  distinct  from  God.  But  the 
ground  of  that  distinction  is  the  finitude  of  their  being  and  its 
consequent  relativity  and  dependence,  that  is  their  lack  of  being, 
what  they  are  not.  That  which  differentiates  the  creature  from 
God  is  thus  no  positive  being — non-existent  in  the  Divine  Being, 
but  the  negation-limitation  of  the  creature,  whereby  its  participa- 
tion of  the  Being  of  God  is  essentially  constituted  as  a being 
distinct  from  Him.  St  John  of  the  Cross  insists  on  this  truth 
when  he  says  of  certain  created  beauties  : “ All  that  is  here  set 
forth  is  in  God  eminently  in  an  infinite  way,  or  rather,  every  one  of 
these  grandeurs  is  God  and  all  of  them  together  are  God.  . . .” 
The  soul  “ feels  all  things  to  be  God  ” ( Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  14). 
It  follows  that  symbolism  is  not  merely  an  external  and  arbitrary 
representation  of  spiritual  realities  by  material  figures.  It  is 
rather  that  the  ultimate  reality  of  the  symbol  is  its  participation 
and  reflection  of  the  spiritual  reality  or  idea  symbolised  : and  thus 
ultimately  of  God,  of  Whom  all  ideas  are  aspects.  The  essence, 
for  example,  of  some  beautiful  scene  in  nature  is  precisely  this, 
that  it  is  an  external,  sensible  reflection  and  presentation  of  spirit. 
All  that  is  positive  in  it,  as  opposed  to  the  negation  of  its 
materiality,  is  the  participation  of  a spiritual  reality,  ultimately 
of  a type-idea  existent  in  God,  a participation  therefore  of  the 
Divine  Being.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  ascent  of  a mountain  is  no 
merely  arbitrary  emblem  of  the  Godward  ascent  of  the  soul.  A 
mountain  ascent  is  essentially  an  elevation  and  consequently 
the  attainment  of  a wider  horizon,  no  longer  bounded  by  the 
narrow  limits  of  the  valley  below.  This  material  elevation  and 
emancipation  of  vision  themselves  embody  and  thus  represent 
and  participate  in  a spiritual  elevation  and  emancipation  of  vision. 
These  spiritual  realities  constitute  the  positive  being  of  a mountain 
ascent.  Their  material  embodiment  is  but  a limitation  or  nega- 
tion of  being.  This  spiritual  elevation,  this  spiritual  emancipation 
from  limits,  is  an  activity  of  the  creature  Godward,  a relation 
therefore  of  the  finite  creature  to  the  infinite  God  : so  finally  God 
Himself  as  essentially  constitutive  of  such  an  activity  and  relation- 
ship in  His  creation.  Thus  in  very  truth  “ My  beloved  is  the 
mountains,”  as  St  John  says  in  this  same  stanza. 

It  is  also  clear  that  the  higher  the  created  being,  the  more  fully 
does  it  reproduce  the  Divine  Being  of  the  Creator.  A living  soul 
possesses  more  of  God  than  a mass  of  lifeless  matter.  For  it  is  less 


THE  DIVINE  IMMANENCE  35 

limited,  less  exclusive.  A material  substance,  indeed,  differs  from 
a spirit  by  the  lesser  degree  of  its  being,  by  its  greater  exclusion 
of  other  beings.  There  is  less  being  in  an  electric  current  than  in 
thought,  and  electricity  therefore  reproduces  less  of  the  Divine 
Being  than  thought.  God  is  therefore  more  immanent  in,  more 
present  to,  creatures  possessed  of  higher  and  fuller  degrees  of 
being,1  than  He  is  immanent  in  and  present  to  creatures  possessed 
only  of  lower  and  scantier  degrees  of  being.  For  the  increased 
limitation — that  is,  lack  of  being  of  the  latter — excludes  Him  to  a 
greater  degree  by  its  greater  defect  of  being — that  is,  its  greater 
exclusion  of  his  boundless  plenitude  of  Being— than  the  lesser 
limitation  of  the  former,  constituting  as  it  does  a fuller  degree  of 
being,  and  therefore  a lesser  exclusion  of  His  Unlimited  Being. 
Hence  God  is  more  immanent  in  spirit  than  in  matter,  more  in 
reason  than  in  mere  sentience,  more  in  life  than  in  the  inorganic, 
more  immanent  also  in  the  more  purely  spiritual,  and  therefore 
less  limited  functions  of  the  human  soul  than  in  its  more  sensible 
and  therefore  more  limited  functions.  Hence  every  creature  is  a 
revelation  of  God,  and  the  higher  in  the  scale  of  being  that  creature 
is,  the  more  fully  does  it  reveal  Him.  Consider  some  beautiful 
flower,  for  example,  a peony  glowing  amidst  the  tender  green  of 
May.  All  its  grace  of  form,  all  its  glory  of  colour  is  a representa- 
tion, a participation,  though  infinitely  inadequate  and  scant,  of  the 
Beauty  of  God.  But  the  beauty  of  a loving  heart  is  a far  more 
adequate  representation,  a far  ampler  participation,  albeit  still 
infinitely  inadequate  and  scant  of  that  Divine  Beauty.  Created 
being  is  thus  on  its  positive  side  the  reproduction  of  the  Divine 
Being,  under  diverse  aspects  and  in  divers  degrees,  so  that  there 
is  no  positive  being  in  them,  that  is  not  in  God  ; that  is  not  their 
participation  of  God,  God  in  them.  The  Vulgate  used  by  St  John 
of  the  Cross  read,  in  the  first  chapter  of  St  John’s  Gospel : “ What- 
soever was  made,  in  Him  was  life.”  Whether  this  be  the  true 
reading  or  not,2  it  was  certainly  the  classical  expression  of  the 
truth  for  St  John  of  the  Cross,  for  he  recurs  several  times  to  this 
text.  By  it  is  meant  that  the  true  being,  the  living  reality  of  the 
creature  is  the  Divine  Idea,  the  Aspect  of  the  Godhead  which 
it  represents,  this  Idea  being  no  dead  concept  but  one  with 
the  Divine  Life,  an  Idea  moreover  whose  willed  externalisation 

1 Strictly  speaking,  they  are  rather  present  to  Him  than  He  to  them.  See 
Transcendence,  chap.  iv. 

2 It  is  the  reading  accepted  by  Westcott  and  Hort. 


36  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

constituted  the  creature  in  being,  and  conserves  it  in  being. 
Thus  the  being  of  the  creature  is  rooted  in  the  Godhead,  its 
Creator ; its  continuance  in  being  is  grounded  in  the  Godhead, 
its  Conserver.  Without  the  Divine  Conservation  and  Co-operation 
the  being  and  action  of  the  creature  would  cease.  Thus  is  the 
life  of  the  creature  wholly  in  God.  In  the  fourth  stanza  of  The 
Living  Flame  of  Love , we  read  : “ As  St  John  tells  us,  all  things 
in  Him  [God]  are  life,  and  in  Him  they  live  and  move  and  are,  as 
saith  also  the  Apostle.  Hence  it  is,  that  when  this  mighty  Emperor 
moves  in  the  soul  ...  all  things  seem  to  move  together,  even  as 
in  the  earth’s  motion  all  the  natural  things  thereon,  move,  as  if 
they  had  been  nothing.  . . . Nor  do  they  only  move.  They  also 
disclose  the  beauties  of  their  being,  their  virtue,  beauty  and 
graces,  and  the  root  of  their  duration  and  life.  The  soul  now  sees 
how  all  creatures  both  on  high  and  here  below  have  their  life, 
force  and  duration  in  Him.  . . . Although  it  is  true  that  the  soul 
sees  that  these  things  are  distinct  from  God,  in  that  their  being 
is  created,  and  sees  them  in  Him  with  their  force,  root  and  strength, 
she  also  knows  that  God  is  in  His  being  in  an  infinitely  pre- 
eminent way,  all  these  things.”  Mother  Cecilia  repeats  this  same 
doctrine  with  particular  emphasis.  “ The  Soul,”  she  says, 
“ beholds  how  creatures,  although  they  are  dead  in  themselves, 
in  God  are  life  ” (Trans.,  st.  4).  In  such  wise  is  this  “ vision  of 
God  ” imprinted  on  the  sight  of  the  soul  that  in  it  she  beholds  all 
things  in  and  through  God,  and  sees  Him  in  them  all.  She  beholds 
them,  as  it  were,  bathed  and  penetrated  by  their  Divine  Lord,  and 
when  she  contemplates  them  as  they  are  in  themselves  she  sees  that 
they  are  like  accidents  without  substance  ( Transformation  of  the 
Soul  in  God,  st.  1).  She  does  not  indeed  say  that  apart  from  the 
Divine  Being  creatures  are  mere  accidents  whose  substance  is 
God.  That  were  sheer  pantheism.  What  she  does  mean  by  her 
bold  language  is  that  since  the  substance  of  creatures  is  but  an 
externalised  Aspect  of  the  Godhead,  a participation  of  the  Divine 
Being,  differentiated  from  Him  by  their  creaturely  limitation,  and 
wholly  dependent  upon,  and  grounded  in  His  being,  it  is  by 
comparison  unreal  and  accidental.  Ruysbroeck  expresses  this 
same  doctrine  in  another  terminology  when  he  speaks  of  the  Divine 
Being  as  the  uncreated  superessence  of  our  created  essence 
(Sejjt  Degres  d‘ Amour,  chap.  xiv).  Not  only  is  God  the  positive 
being  of  all  creatures  in  the  sense  explained  above.  He  is  also 
the  agent  of  all  their  activity.  As  Dame  Julian  tells  us  : “ God 


THE  DIVINE  IMMANENCE  37 

doth  all  thing's,  be  it  never  so  little.  . . . There  is  no  Doer  but  He  ” 
{Revelations,  chap.  xi).  Every  created  activity  qua  positive  ac- 
tivity is  an  act  of  God,  for  that  activity  is  sustained,  moved,  kept 
in  motion  by  His  co-operative  will,  and  is  a finite  reproduction  of 
His  activity.  Even  the  ruthless  determinism  of  natural  energies 
veils  the  beneficent  action  of  Personal  love  operative  therein. 
This  activity  of  God  in  all  Action,  as  the  concomitant  of  His 
presence  in  all  being,  is  taught  by  Bl.  Angela  of  Foligno  in  the 
following  energetic  language.  “I  understand,”  she  says,  “that 
He  [God]  is  present  ...  in  everything  that  hath  being,  in  the 
demon,  in  the  good  Angel,  in  hell,  in  Paradise,  in  adultery,  in 
murder,  in  every  good  work  ” {Visions  and  Instructions,  chap,  xxvii. 
Trs.  A Secular  Priest).  Hence  it  follows,  as  Dame  Julian  points 
out,  that  every  act,  even  an  act  that  is  morally  evil,  is,  as  a positive 
act,  good.  The  evil  is  simply  an  undue  defect  of  being  limiting 
that  positive  goodness.  Moreover,  even  this  undue  defect  is  over- 
ruled and  supplied  by  God  for  the  general  good  of  the  universe 
— indeed  the  good  of  every  part  of  the  universe — in  so  far  as  each 
part  is  capable  of  good— a capacity  largely  dependent  in  the  case 
of  rational  spirits  on  their  free  choice.  The  doctrine  of  im- 
manence— as  apprehended  by  mystical  intuition — whereby  God 
is  perceived  as  the  positive  being  and  activity  of  all  creatures  is 
the  firm  foundation  of  this  further  optimism  of  faith.  Because 
God  “ is  the  only  Doer,”  “ He  can  and  will  make  all  things  well.” 
The  life  of  every  creature  is  thus  rooted  in  the  Divine  Life  of  God 
— so  that,  although  the  created  life  is  by  its  creatureliness  and 
consequent  finitude  infinitely  distinct  from  the  Divine  Being  and 
Life  of  God,  the  Divine  Being  is  intimately  present  as  the  ground 
and  ultimate  cause  of  that  created  life.  Moreover,  it  is  by  this 
Divine  immanence  that  we  can  explain  satisfactorily  the  evolu- 
tionary phenomena  now  being  discovered  by  the  natural  scientist. 
Natural  selection  can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  an  adequate  ex- 
planation of  the  evolution  of  species.  The  sudden  mutations 
discernible,  for  example,  in  certain  plants,  when  brought  into  a 
new  environment,  mutations  whose  end  is  the  formation  of  new 
species,  better  adapted  to  that  environment  than  the  parent 
species,  point  to  a purposive  nisus  in  organic  life — as  is  admitted 
by  many  modern  biologists.  But  it  is  surely  impossible  to  regard 
that  purpose,  which  has  in  view  the  future  welfare  and  improve- 
ment of  the  species,  as  something  inherent  in  a life  that  is 
irrational  and,  in  the  case  of  plants,  not  even  conscious.  We 


38  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

must  see  in  it  therefore  the  working  of  a Reason  other  than  the 
organism  in  question — yet  intimately  present  in  that  organism — 
which  directs  the  nisus  of  the  organism  in  view  of  a good  which 
it  is  incapable  of  foreseeing.  This  immanent  Reason  or  Spirit 
(unless  indeed  it  be  an  angel,  which  would  justify  anew  the 
scholastic  belief  in  angelic  beings  at  work  behind  the  phenomena 
of  nature)  must  be  God  Himself  immanent  in  His  creation.  The 
intimate  immanence  of  purpose — so  intimate  as  to  give  rise  to 
the  error  that  it  is  inherent  in  the  organism  itself — points  to  the 
latter  as  the  true  explanation.  The  view  of  evolution  adopted  by 
the  Jesuit  scientist,  Fr.  Wassmann,  is  polyphiletic.  He  believes 
that  our  present  species  have  been  evolved  from  a far  more 
limited  number  of  species,  each  the  ancestor  of  a group  of  species. 
The  origin  of  these  type-species  he  refers  to  special  creation.  The 
general  consensus,  however,  of  modern  scientists  is  in  favour 
of  a monophyletic  evolution,  whereby  all  species  have  been  evolved 
from  one  rudimentary  form  of  organic  being.  I can  see  nothing 
in  the  defined  teaching  of  the  Church  to  prevent  our  acceptance 
of  this  hypothesis,  if  the  evidence  seems  to  demand  it,  provided, 
however,  we  admit  the  special  creation  of  the  immortal  soul  of 
man,  and  that  in  the  case  of  every  individual.  I am  too  ignorant 
of  natural  science  to  put  forward  with  decision  any  view  of  evolu- 
tion. It  does,  however,  appear  to  me  that  modern  scientific 
research  has  (1)  rendered  monophyletic  evolution  extremely 
probable  ; (2)  laid  increasing  stress  on  sudden  mutations.  The 
great  mutations  which  have  brought  into  being  new  type  forms 
seem  to  me  due  not  to  special  creation  but  to  the  operation  on  the 
subject  of  the  mutation  of  an  external  stimulus,  the  stimulus  of 
the  Divine  Spirit  immanent  in  creation.  This  special  operation 
of  the  immanent  Godhead  would  effect  a mutation  greater  in 
kind  and  degree  than  could  be  effected  by  the  operation  of  natural 
causes.  It  would,  moreover,  be  but  the  intensification  at  special 
points  of  the  evolutionary  process  of  the  continuous  co-operation 
of  God  with  the  course  of  evolution,  wherein  He  is  immanent  for 
its  motion  and  its  direction.  Thus  do  the  discoveries  of  modern 
science,  which  at  first  occasioned  such  needless  alarm  to  the 
religious  soul,  tend  to  make  us  realise  as  never  before  the  im- 
manence of  God — even  in  His  lowest  creatures — not  only  to 
sustain  them  in  being  and  action  but  to  direct  that  action  to  the 
common  good  of  the  material  creation.  This  good  is  an  ever  more 
adequate  representation  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  this  more 


THE  DIVINE  IMMANENCE  39 

adequate  representation  is  (as  we  shall  see)  a closer  union  with 
Himself.  It  is  then  no  exaggeration  of  devotion  but  a funda- 
mental truth  that  the  creature,  alike  its  being  and  its  energy, 
apart  from  God,  is  nothing.  All  created  being  and  activity  is 
a partial  reproduction  of  God,  and  is  eminently  contained  and 
existent  in  Him.  The  creature  has  and  is  nothing  of  its  own, 
save  its  creaturely  limitation,  which  is  sheer  negation  of  being. 
Nevertheless,  that  limitation  is  essentially  constitutive  of  created 
being.  Therefore  created  being  is  not  a limited  mode  or  aspect 
of  Uncreated  Being.  This  pantheistic  error,  as  was  pointed  out 
in  the  previous  chapter,  would  make  the  Unlimited  necessarily 
manifested  by  the  limited,  and  would  therefore  subject  the  Un- 
limited to  limitations,  a patent  self-contradiction.  On  the  con- 
trary, created  being,  in  virtue  of  its  essential  limitation,  is,  as 
created  being,  infinitely  apart  from  the  Uncreated  Being,  of 
Which,  as  being,  it  is  a participation.  A paradox  assuredly  of 
discursive  reason,  but  the  truth  of  mystic  intuition. 


CHAPTER  III 

UNITY  OF  GOD 


Hear,  O Israel,  the  Lord  Thy  God  is  One  God. 

To  be,  is  no  other  than  to  be  one,  in  so  far,  therefore,  as  anything 
attains  unity,  in  so  far  it  “is.”  For  unity  worketh  congruity  and 
harmony,  whereby  things  composite  are,  in  so  far  as  they  are : for 
things  uncompounded  are  in  themselves,  because  they  are  one ; but 
things  compounded,  imitate  unity  by  the  harmony  of  their  parts,  and, 
so  far  as  they  attain  to  unity,  they  are.  Wherefore  order  and  rule 
secure  being,  disorder  tends  to  not  being. 

St  Augustine, 

De  Morib.  Munich,  chap.  vi.  Quoted  and  trs. 

Pusey,  in  note  to  Confessions,  chap.  i. 

Before  discussing  the  complement  of  the  Divine  Immanence,  the 
Divine  Transcendence  with  its  consequence,  the  unknowableness 1 
of  God,  as  He  is  in  Himself,  I must  speak  of  the  Divine  Unity. 
We  will  approach  this  from  the  scale  of  reality  and  truth.  The 
lower  the  rank  of  creatures  in  the  scale  of  being — that  is,  the  less 
they  possess  of  positive  being  or  reality — the  greater  is  their  mutual 
exclusiveness  : that  is  to  say,  the  more  do  they  exclude  other 
creatures,  other  aspects  and  kinds  of  being.  One  material  atom 
or  electron  is  wholly  external  to  another.  Matter  is  indeed  a 
principle  of  exclusion  and  separation.  The  higher  the  being  the 
greater  is  its  unity,  a unity,  however,  which  is  imposed  upon  an 
ever-increasing  multiplicity.  Life,  and  still  more,  thought,  is 
inclusive  and  unifying.  How  much  greater  is  the  unity  of  the 
spiritual  than  the  unity  of  the  material  is  evident  from  a simple 
example.  A stone  consists  of  separable  molecules,  a perception, 
however  many  its  objects,  is  one  indivisible  act.  Life  unifies  in 
one  nisus  directed  to  one  end  a complex  manifold  of  forces,  other- 
wise divergent,  and  subordinates  to  itself  a variety  of  material 
elements.  Thus  is  constituted  the  unity  of  the  organism  whose 
members  are  united  by  their  essential  relation  to  the  whole,  and  are 

1 By  creaturely  knowledge — that  is,  the  knowledge  proceeding  from  a created 
intelligence  as  its  first  principle. 


40 


UNITY  OF  GOD  41 

so  mutually  interdependent  that  in  proportion  to  the  perfection  of 
the  organism  the  nature  or  activity  of  each  increasingly  demands 
and  implies  those  of  the  others.  When  life  departs  the  principle  of 
unity  is  removed.  The  subordinate  elements  or  forces  then  work 
independently  of  each  other  and  corruption  sets  in.  Above  sentient 
life  is  thought,  and  thought  is  more  unifying  than  sentience.  It 
unifies  an  indefinitely  greater  number  and  diversity  of  elements, 
and  their  union  is  far  more  intimate.  The  higher,  more  powerful 
and  more  deeply  penetrating  the  thought,  the  wider  is  the  scope 
and  the  more  intimate  the  nature  of  its  unification. 

It  is  said  to  be  the  essential  characteristic  of  genius  to  find 
resemblances  between  things  apparently  most  unlike — in  other 
words,  to  unify  diverse  phenomena  by  their  reduction  under 
general  laws.  A great  scientific  hypothesis  is  such  a principle  of 
unification.  Intuition,  however,  unifies  more  completely  than 
discursive  thought.  By  intuition  I mean  the  intuition  of  the 
mystic  (and  in  a secondary  sense  of  the  artist),  not  the  lower 
intuition,  which  is  blind  instinct. 

In  like  manner  a dominant  aim  in  the  will  unifies  by  sub- 
ordination the  minor  aims  which  would  otherwise  distract  and 
divide  and  so  “ corrupt  ” the  higher  spiritual  life.  Thus  through- 
out creation  an  increased  unification  of  an  increased  multiplicity 
denotes  an  increase  of  reality  and  a greater  perfection.  Lowest 
of  all  is  elemental  matter,  with  its  external  and  mutually  exclusive 
multiplicity  united  solely  by  external  interrelation.*  In  chemical 
combination  there  is  the  same  externality  of  parts,  but  a higher 
unification  has  been  achieved,  by  the  fusion  of  diverse  elements  to 
form  a compound,  which  is  qualitatively  distinct  from  its  com- 
ponents, not  merely  their  external  sum  total.  Above  this  is 
organic  life  unifying  diverse  material  elements  by  subordination 
to  one  nisus.  Above  that  is  consciousness,  in  which  a greater  multi- 
plicity of  forces,  desires  and  subject  materials  is  quasi-consciously 
unified  by  a direction  to  one  end,  through  an  immediate  instinctive 
apperception  of  their  relation  to  that  end.  Sentience  also  unites 
subject  and  object  in  the  act  of  sense  perception.  We  then  rise  in 
succession  to  discursive  reason  uniting  sensation  to  sensation,  idea 
to  idea,  fact  to  fact,  and  framing  unifying  hypotheses,  to  rational 
will  unifying  minor  ends  by  one  supreme  aim,  to  artistic  intuition, 
vaguely  conscious  of  an  ultimate  unity  which  it  cannot  grasp,  and, 
above  all  these,  to  mystical  intuition — which  is  at  once  volitional 
and  intuitive,  apprehending  though  without  clear  comprehension 


42  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  Unity  of  God,  and  of  all  things  in  Him  as  their  ground  and 
cause.  Thus  as  the  scale  of  being  and  its  concomitant  activity  rises 
upward  by  its  increase  of  content,  and  of  qualitative  level,  there 
is  discovered  an  ever-increasing  unification  of  an  ever-increasing 
multiplicity.  The  approach  to  God,  both  objectively  in  the  scale 
of  being  itself  and  subjectively  in  the  apperception  of  reality  by 
creatures  capable  of  psychical  action,  is  thus  the  way  of  an  ever 
greater  unification  of  an  ever  fuller  manifold.  Hence  God  must 
be  the  “ Absolute  ” Unity  of  an  infinite  manifold,  and  the  Vision 
of  God  —of  which  mystical  intuition  is  but  the  obscure  beginning 
— the  perfectly  unified  apperception  of  His  All-inclusive  Unity. 
This  notion  of  a scale  of  being  ascending  upwards  to  the  One  God 
in  proportion  to  its  increasing  unification  of  an  increasing  manifold 
is  corroborated  by  the  teaching  of  Mr  Bradley’s  philosophy  of  the 
Absolute.  Mr  Bradley  finds  in  this  increased  unification  of  an 
increased  multiplicity  a criterion  of  greater  reality.  He  regards 
the  soul  as  a more  adequate  presentation  of  reality  than  matter, 
because  “ the  relation  of  unity  and  multiplicity  is  not  so  external 
in  the  soul-life  as  in  physical  nature.”  But  this  unification  is 
obviously  incomplete  in  human  psychology.  “ Perfect  experi- 
ence would  consist  in  an  all-comprehensive  content,  unified 
with  full  consequence  and  harmony  into  a whole.”  1 This  ideal 
multiplicity-in-unity  of  Mr  Bradley  is  realised  in  that  perfect 
unification  in  One  Simple  Unity  of  an  infinite  multiplicity,  which  is 
the  Divine  Being  of  Catholic  theology.  Mr  Bradley  concludes  that 
since  we  cannot  attain  to  this  ideal  unification  of  multiplicity,  we 
cannot  attain  to  reality,  and  hence  that  our  knowledge  is  confined 
to  appearance.  This  is  a truth  falsely  expressed.  Our  natural 
knowledge  is  not  indeed  of  appearance  in  the  sense"of  the  merely 
phenomenal,  but  it  is  of  a reality  which  is  but  unreality  and 
appearance  by  comparison  with  God  the  absolute  Reality.  It  is 
also  true  that  our  natural  knowledge,  confined  as  it  is  within  the 
limits  of  the  finite,  of  the  external  multiplicity  of  sense  images  and 
distinctive  concepts  derived  therefrom,  can  never  attain  to  know- 
ledge of  the  nature  of  the  ultimate  or  absolute  Reality — that  is,  of 
the  nature  of  God.  It  is  only  by  the  supernatural  elevation  of  the 
soul,  by  the  light  of  glory  and  in  a veiled  and  imperfect  manner 
here,  by  sanctifying  grace — that  we  can  receive  this  knowledge  of 
God  as  He  is  in  Himself. 

Mr  Bradley’s  insistence  upon  the  logical  need  of  unification,  and 

1 Professor  Hoffding  on  Mr  Bradley.  Modern  Philosophers,  pp.  63-64, 


UNITY  OF  GOD  43 

his  application  of  the  principle  that  unity  in  multiplicity  is  the 
criterion  of  reality,  has  thus  led  him  to  a view  of  the  Absolute 
which  is  largely  coincident  with  the  doctrine  of  God  taught  by  the 
Catholic  mystic.  Unhappily,  that  view  is  weakened  by  a con- 
clusion which  makes  the  external  imperfectly  unified  multiplicity 
of  “ Appearance  ” a necessary  and  inherent  expression  of  the 
absolute.  If,  however,  the  absolute  of  necessity  expresses  itself 
by  this  external  multiplicity,  that  perfect  unification  which  Mr 
Bradley  rightly  demands  is,  after  all,  lacking  in  his  absolute. 
Nevertheless  he  has  done  good  service  in  thus  emphasising  the 
necessity  of  this  unity,  since  it  is  a principle  of  the  first  importance 
for  mystical  theology. 

Since  the  scale  of  increasing  reality  is  an  increasing  unification 
of  an  increasing  manifold,  so  also  must  it  be  with  our  knowledge 
and  practical  handling  of  reality.  As  that  knowledge  and  handling 
penetrate  to  greater  depths  of  reality  and  approach  closer  to  the 
ultimate  reality,  they  are  increasingly  unified  alike  in  object,  mode 
and  act.  Of  this  I will  now  give  some  examples. 

In  internal  politics  the  goal  of  the  true  statesman  is  the  unifica- 
tion, for  the  common  good  of  society,  by  co-ordination  in  view  of 
that  good,  of  the  multiple  activities  of  individuals,  each  freely 
developed.  In  international  politics  his  goal  should  be  the  unifica- 
tion under  one  world-wide  authority  of  a multiplicity  of  sub- 
ordinate societies,  each  of  which  makes  in  complete  internal 
freedom  its  peculiar  contribution,  a contribution  which  is  the  fruit 
of  its  particular  history  and  character,  to  the  commonwealth  of 
the  world-state  and  thus  to  the  common  good  of  the  human  race. 
We  may  hope  with  the  authors  of  a stimulating  little  book,  The  War 
and  Democracy,  that  such  a unification  of  a multitude  of  internally 
autonomous  states  will  be  at  least  the  ultimate  solution  of  the 
present  European  problem.  The  late  war  was  radically  due 
to  a false  patriotism,  which  aims  at  the  self-realisation  of  one 
nationality  as  independent  and  exclusive  of,  and  therefore  as 
opposed  to,  the  full  self-realisation  of  other  nationalities.  For  no 
single  nation  or  race  can  possibly  be  the  full  expression  and 
realisation  of  a civilisation  which  can  only  be  adequately  expressed 
and  realised  by  all  its  component  nationalities  and  races  together. 
Hence  to  maintain  and  to  work  for  the  realisation  of  one  national 
or  racial  ideal  or  culture  or  character  as  exclusive  of  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  ideals,  cultures  and  characters  of  other  nations  or  races, 
is  to  maintain,  not  only  what  is  positive  in  that  national  ideal, 


44  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

character  or  culture,  but  also  its  limitation  : that  is,  its  negation 
of  other  ideals,  characters  and  cultures.  Even  if  one  national 
culture  is  better  than  another,  it  is  not  identical  with  that  other, 
and  therefore  the  two  cultures  are  richer  and  contain  more  positive 
good  than  the  one  alone.  The  unity  of  man’s  common  good 
demands,  therefore,  an  inclusive  patriotism  which  expresses  itself 
in  the  desire  that  the  patriot’s  country  shall  make  the  largest 
contribution  to  the  common  treasury  of  mankind,  not  the  exclu- 
sive patriotism  which  seeks  the  lower  material  welfare  of  that 
country  at  the  expense  of  the  well-being  of  other  countries  : the 
love  of  one’s  country  as  against  other  countries.  This  latter 
patriotism  is  a mischievous  illusion,  whose  fruits  are  division, 
ignorance,  prejudice,  suspicion,  hatred  and  suicidal  wars.  It  is  a 
limitation  and  the  parent  of  limitations.  The  inclusive  unity  of 
the  unlimited  demands  the  former  patriotism  and  wholly  rejects 
the  latter.  Let  us  hope  that  the  false  patriotism  which  attaches  to 
a system  of  sovereign  states  and  which  is  a principle  either  of 
division,  exclusion  and  mutual  destruction,  or,  if  one  such  state 
acquires  world- wide  supremacy,  of  a wasteful  and  barren  unifica- 
tion, shall  in  future  give  place  to  a world  commonwealth  of  sub- 
ordinate states  that  will  include  in  its  unity  the  greatest  possible 
multiplicity. 

Even  a very  superficial  acquaintance  with  the  fluctuations  of 
philosophical  systems  should  suffice  to  bring  home  the  fact  that 
the  only  final  and  satisfactory  philosophy — and  by  philosophy  I 
mean  the  intellectual  presentation  of  human  experience  as  an 
interconnected  whole — must  be  a synthesis  of  all  that  is  positive 
in  every  interpretation  of  experience  made  by  the  human  soul, 
whether  of  the  totality  of  experience,  or  of  any  partial  aspect,  or 
portion  of  experience.  That  synthesis  must,  for  instance,  possess 
the  unification  of  Monism  without  its  limitation  of  God  by  the 
limitations  proper  only  to  finite  beings.  It  must  possess  that 
sense  of  the  Divine  Transcendence  which  belongs  to  Agnosticism 
without  the  refusal  of  Agnosticism  to  satisfy  the  soul’s  demand 
for  immediate  experience  of  ultimate  Reality — that  is,  for  personal 
communion  with  God,  which  is  the  essence  of  religion.  For  this 
refusal  really  implies  that  ultimate  Reality  is  infra-  not  supra- 
personal,  and  therefore  unable  to  place  the  soul  in  such  a relation- 
ship with  itself  as  that  in  which  one  person  stands  to  another. 
Such  a philosophy  must  also  admit  the  self-evident  dualism  of 
matter  and  spirit,  and  that  more  fundamental  dualism  of  the 


UNITY  OF  GOD  45 

unlimited  Creator  and  the  essentially  limited  and  hence  compara- 
tively unreal  creature.  It  must,  on  the  other  hand,  reject  a dual- 
ism which  denies  one  principle  causal,  and  therefore  explanatory, 
of  the  totality  of  experience  and  (by  extension)  of  being.  It  must 
insist  on  the  discontinuity  of  the  scale  and  process  of  evolution,  by 
the  introduction  of  new  principles  and  new  beginnings.  But  it 
must  ascribe  all  these  new  principles  and  beginnings  to  one  first 
cause  and  supreme  principle,  Who  manifests  aspects  of  his  one 
infinite  being  in  all  these,  and  Who  is  immanent  in  the  course  of 
evolution  to  produce  these  new  beginnings  and  introduce  these 
new  principles  while  ever  remaining  infinitely  transcendent  of 
His  creation.  Our  philosophy  must  also  lay  due  stress  on  the 
uniqueness  of  the  individual  and  on  the  free  will  of  the  rational 
soul,  without  losing  sight  of  the  dependence  of  the  individual  on 
his  environment,  both  present  and  past,  and  of  the  solidarity  of 
human  society,  and  guarding  always  a wider  consciousness  of  the 
universe  as  a whole.  It  must  accept,  not  only  the  data  of  science 
and  the  logical  deductions  of  the  discursive  intellect,  but  the 
intuitive  perceptions  of  art,  and  the  facts  of  conscience  and  of 
religious  experience.  It  must  utilise  all  these  manifold  data  of 
human  experience,  accepting  all  that  is  positive  in  them  and  reject- 
ing the  negations  arising  out  of  the  inadequacy  of  each  partial 
datum  or  series  of  data.  It  will  thus  harmonise  and  unify,  as  far 
as  it  is  possible  to  do  so.  It  will,  however,  accept  the  obvious 
impossibility  of  any  complete  unification  by  our  finite  under- 
standing, whose  accessible  subject  matter  is,  moreover,  so  incom- 
plete and  so  narrowly  limited.  Therefore  it  will  not  attempt  a 
false  harmony  by  the  rejection  of  any  indubitable  datum  of 
experience.  Moreover,  when  all  these  data  have  been  accepted, 
such  a philosophy  will  recognise  the  inadequacy  of  human  experi- 
ence and  its  philosophic  interpretation,  even  at  their  richest  and 
deepest,  to  satisfy  the  need  of  the  human  soul,  which  craves  a 
fuller  knowledge  of  God  and  a closer  union  with  Him  than  her 
unaided  and  purely  natural  understanding  and  activity  can 
supply.  It  will  therefore  seek  a revealed  religion  and  a dis- 
pensation of  supernatural  grace  which  will  fully  satisfy  this  need, 
while  at  the  same  time  accepting  and  unifying  all  the  positive 
truth  which  this  most  “ positive  ” and  synthetic  philosophy — the 
philosophy  of  the  unlimited — must,  as  we  have  seen,  accept  and 
subsume  ; in  short,  a revelation  which  is  a world  religion.  Such 
a world  religion  must  clearly  possess  this  inclusive  unification  of 


46  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  greatest  possible  multiplicity,  which  is  a reflection  of  the 
divine  unity  of  God.  It  cannot,  however,  be  a syncretism  of  all 
existing  and  future  cults,  beliefs  and  purported  revelations.  Such 
a syncretism  would  result  in  the  substitution  for  a number  of 
living  beliefs,  of  a philosophical  abstraction  which  would  fail  to 
provide  those  concrete  objects  and  aids,  faith  and  worship  and 
grace  required  by  the  religious  sense  of  man.  Moreover,  such  a 
syncretism  would  involve  the  rejection  of  that  very  element  which 
transcends  the  natural  theology  in  which  our  philosophy  con- 
cluded, but  which  it  found  so  inadequate.  Therefore  our  syn- 
thetic philosophy  must  look  for  its  religion  to  some  one  definite 
religious  system  of  divine  revelation,  which  contains  in  itself  all 
that  is  positive  in  every  other  creed  and  worship  and  rejects  only 
their  limitations  and  exclusions.  If  no  such  revealed  religion 
were  forthcoming,  we  should  be  obliged  to  fall  back  on  the  in- 
adequacy of  natural  theology.  Such  a religion  does,  however, 
exist.  It  is  the  Catholic  religion,  which  can  be  shown  to  be  a 
synthesis  of  all  that  is  positive  in  all  other  creeds  and  worships, 
and  which  also  necessitates  and  implies  a synthetic  philosophy  of 
the  type  which  I have  outlined  above.  We  find,  for  example,  in 
Catholicism  a synthesis  of  monotheism  and  polytheism,  of  the 
pantheism  of  the  Upanishads  and  the  transcendence  of  Moham- 
medanism, of  sacerdotalism  and  personal  religion,  of  sacrament- 
alism  and  mysticism,  of  communism  and  individualism.  The 
Catholic  synthesis  reconciles  and  unifies  all  these  divergent 
elements  by  rejecting  their  mutual  negations  and  accepting  what 
is  positive  in  all.  Catholic  theology  is  the  unification  of  the  mani- 
fold of  religious  beliefs  and  creeds,  as  any  philosophy  wholly 
acceptable  in  her  eyes  must  be  the  unification  of  the  manifold  of 
philosophic  systems,  and  of  the  data  from  which  they  have  been 
built  up.  It  is  true  that  Catholic  theology  does  not  propose,  any 
more  than  sound  philosophy  can  propose,  to  provide  a perfect 
rational  unification  of  this  manifold  of  positive  truths.  It  is  faith, 
not  beatific  vision.  It  does,  however,  accept  all  positive  truths, 
even  when  it  cannot  completely  harmonise  them,  and  unifies  them 
at  least  potentially  by  referring  all  to  the  Triune  God,  Who  is  the 
Absolute  Unity  of  an  infinite  multiplicity.  In  any  case  an  in- 
complete unification,  with  a potency  and  promise  of  completion 
hereafter,  of  the  entire  manifold,  that  constitutes  the  totality  of 
experience,  is  preferable  to  a complete  unification  of  a lesser  mani- 
fold that  is  but  a portion  of  that  totality  : a unification  artificially 


UNITY  OF  GOD  47 

attained  by  the  acceptance  of  certain  data  only  of  experience,  to 
the  exclusion  of  other  data.  Moreover,  as  our  union  with  God 
increases,  we  enjoy  an  increasing  perception  of  the  ultimate  unity 
of  dogma  and  of  experience  in  their  first  principle,  the  unity  of 
God,  the  revealer  of  dogma,  the  cause  and  ground  of  experience. 
This  synthetic  character  of  the  Catholic  Faith  is  surely  the  most 
cogent  proof  of  its  Divine  origin  and  of  its  faithful  representation 
of  the  absolute  unity  of  infinite  variety  which  is  the  Being  of  God. 
This  universality  of  Catholicism  has  indeed  never  been  perfectly 
actualised,  nor  can  it  be  until  and  unless  the  Church  comes  into 
vital  contact  with  all  the  civilisations,  philosophies  and  religions 
of  mankind.  For  the  Catholic  synthesis,  the  unification  by 
Catholicism  and  the  philosophy  which  it  presupposes,  of  the  entire 
manifold  of  all  religious  and  metaphysical  truths,  indeed,  of 
experience  as  a whole,  is  not  a static  reality  already  completed 
once  for  all.1  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a living,  organic  growth — a 
growth  due,  not  to  further  revelations,  but  to  an  increase  of  the 
human  experience  and  its  scientific  explanation  which  interpret 
and  develop  the  body  of  truth  once  for  all  revealed  to  the  Apostles, 
and  which  that  revelation  in  turn  interprets  and  unifies.  We 
cannot  therefore  finally  acquiesce  in  the  present  divorce  between 
the  Catholic  religion  and  secular  thought  and  culture.  It  is 
surely  undeniable  that  Catholicism  attained  in  the  mediaeval 
synthesis  the  fullest,  widest  and  richest  of  presentation  hitherto 
achieved.  In  that  synthesis  every  branch  of  human  knowledge 
and  art  was  made  subservient  to  the  understanding  and  explica- 
tion of  the  Catholic  revelation.  From  the  Renaissance  onwards 
secular  culture — speculation  and  art  alike — has  been  increasingly 
dominated  by  a naturalistic  humanist  immanental  and  therefore 
this-worldly,  anti-supernatural  and  anti-religious  tendency.  This 
tendency  is  now  so  far  triumphant  that  transcendental,  other- 
worldly religion,  and  especially  its  most  complete  representative, 
the  Catholic  Faith,  has  been  driven  from  the  main  current  of  our 
European  civilisation  into  its  backwaters.  Every  province  of 
secular  life,  speculation  and  art  has  been  wrested  in  turn  from  the 
empire  of  religion.  All  branches  of  human  activity  and  specula- 
tion now  find  their  end  no  longer  in  eternity,  but  in  time,  no  longer 


1 Nevertheless  there  is  a very  important  static  element  in  Catholicism  unlike 
in  this  the  trend  of  modern  thought  which  is  one-sidedly  dynamic.  A revealed 
dogma  can  never  be  set  aside  as  false,  nor  can  its  fully  ratified  development  be 
rejected.  (See  my  Apologetics,  sec.  15.) 


48  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  God,  but  in  man,  no  longer  in  the  supernatural,  but  in  mere 
nature.  On  the  other  hand,  the  living  presentation  of  Catholi- 
cism has  lost  enormously  in  scope  and  wealth  through  lack  of  the 
stimulation  and  material  of  secular  culture.  A narrowness  of 
outlook,  a lack  of  sympathy  for  all  that  is  good  outside  the  Church, 
an  excessive  suspicion  of  all  novelty,  even  at  times  a dislike  of  art 
and  speculation  as  such,  have  inevitably  marked  the  spirit  of 
Counter-Reformation  as  opposed  to  pre-Reformation  Catholicism.1 
Now  it  may  perhaps  be — as  the  late  Mgr.  Benson  imagined  it 
in  his  gloomy  novel,  The  Lord  of  the  World — that  the  anti- 
supernaturalist tendency  will  attain  an  almost  complete  triumph 
and  culminate  in  the  full  revelation  of  Antichrist — that  is,  of  pure 
naturalism  as  opposed  to  the  supernatural — in  the  great  apostasy 
and  thus  in  the  Second  Coming  of  Our  Lord.  If,  however,  this  is 
not  the  case,  and  many  records  of  past  disappointment  warn  us 
against  too  confident  an  expectation  of  an  imminent  parousia, 
then  the  naturalist  tide  must  inevitably  turn.  The  human  soul 
can  never  be  finally  satisfied  with  the  creature,  because  the 
creature  is  essentially  limited  and  the  soul  needs  the  unlimited — 
the  infinite.  At  the  epoch  of  Our  Saviour’s  birth  naturalism  was 
also  dominant — a dominance  expressed  in  the  entire  structure  and 
life  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Then,  as  to-day,  the  achievements 
and  possibilities  of  man,  the  reality  and  sufficiency  of  the  material, 
or,  at  least,  of  the  purely  natural,  overshadowed  and  dimmed, 
for  the  imagination  at  least,  the  spiritual  and  the  Divine.  Some 
three  to  four  hundred  years  passed  by,  and  lo  ! the  emperors  and 
the  great  ones  of  the  earth  listen  in  reverence  to  the  teachings  of 
desert  hermits  and  pillar  ascetics — the  extremest  representatives 
of  the  supernatural  and  the  transcendent.  But  the  movement 
did  not  end  with  this  conquest  of  the  immanental  and  the  natural 
by  the  transcendental  and  the  supernatural.  A higher  synthesis 
had  yet  to  be  accomplished,  wherein  the  positive  truth  and  value 
of  the  former  should  be  incorporated  into  and  utilised  by  the  latter. 
Natural  philosophy  and  culture  had  scarcely  been  vanquished 
by  the  supernatural  revelation  than  they  were  accepted  by  it  as  its 
faithful  servants,  by  whose  aid  alone  its  own  wealth  and  depth  of 
truth  could  be  fully  manifested.  The  Alexandrine  fathers  first, 
and  later  the  pseudo-Dionysius  and  St  Augustine,  who  largely 
incorporated  Plato  and  Neoplatonism,  began  this  synthesis, 

1 The  fuller  mediaeval  Catholicism  continued  in  Spain  until  after  the  sixteenth 
century,  as  is  evident  in  St  Teresa  and  St  John  of  the  Cross  and  in  Mother  Cecilia. 


UNITY  OF  GOD  49 

which  was  completed  by  the  scholastic  Christianisation  of  Aristotle 
— itself  but  a part  of  that  wider  synthesis  of  Catholicism  and 
Graeco-Roman  civilisation  which  constituted  medievalism.  Since 
the  Renaissance  another  cycle  of  history  has  begun.  We  have 
again  the  thesis  of  pure  naturalism.  Unless  the  end  come  we 
shall  assuredly  have  the  antithesis  of  a reaction  to  supernatural- 
ism and  the  final  synthesis  of  both  tendencies.1  Indeed,  as  before, 
the  commencement  of  the  synthesis  must  be  in  part  concomitant 
with  the  antithesis.  The  Alexandrine  fathers  began  their  work 
before  the  second  century  of  Christianity  had  passed,  and  a 
century  earlier  St  John  had  utilised  the  Platonic-Philonian  con- 
ception of  the  Logos.  So  must  it  be  now  at  this  return  of  the 
cycle.  The  stream  of  secular  philosophy  and  literature  must  be 
reunited  with  the  stream  of  Catholic  Faith  and  its  development. 
We  cannot  believe,  for  example,  that  Spinoza  and  Locke,  Berkeley 
and  Kant,  Hegel  and  Schopenhauer,  Eucken  and  Bergson,  or 
again  that  Goethe  and  Schiller,  Beethoven  and  Wagner,  Words- 
worth and  Shelley,  Ibsen  and  Maeterlinck,  or  yet  again  that 
Newton  and  Laplace,  Darwin  and  Kelvin,  Haeckel  and  Huxley, 
Charcot  and  Freud  have  nothing  to  contribute  to  the  develop- 
ment and  the  enrichment  of  that  increasingly  fuller  and  wider 
presentation  of  reality,  which  is  utilised  and  unified  by  the  Catholic 
revelation.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  we  cannot  substitute  Kantism 
or  Hegelianism  or  indeed  any  other  of  the  post-Renaissance  philo- 
sophies, for  scholasticism,  as  the  most  adequate  metaphysical 
expression  and  instrument  of  Catholicism.  Indeed  the  attempt 
at  a “ Catholic  Kantism  ” has  been  officially  condemned.  The 
reason,  however,  is  that  these  systems  are  essentially  limited  and 
one-sided — interpretations  of  experience  harmonised  artificially  by 
the  rejection  of  indubitable  data  of  that  experience.  Scholasti- 
cism, on  the  contrary,  accepts  frankly  the  totality  of  experience. 
Hence  in  principle  scholasticism  will  be  permanent,  as  against 
these  later,  more  limited  systems.*  The  religion  of  the  unlimited 
cannot  accept  as  adequate  a philosophy  of  the  limited.  But  the 
scholastic  synthesis  will  be  indefinitely  expanded  and  modified  by 
the  incorporation  of  the  positive  truth  contributed  by  these  partial 
philosophies. 

Among  the  ancient  philosophies  the  monistic  system  of  the 
Stoics  could  not  be  accepted  by  the  Church  to  the  degree  in  which 

1 My  use  of  Hegelian  terminology  does  not  imply  a Hegelian  conception  of 
reality  as  a whole. 

D 


50  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Aristotelianism,  Platonism  and  Neoplatonism  were  accepted. 
Nevertheless  the  presence  in  scholasticism  of  an  element  of  Stoic 
provenance  is  indubitable.  May  we  not  expect  to  find  in  the  neo- 
scholasticism of  the  future  elements  similarly  derived  from  the 
philosophies  of — e.g. — Kant  and  Hegel,  although  such  philosophies 
must  ever  remain,  as  a whole,  unacceptable,  on  account  of  their 
intrinsic  limitations.  Such  elements  might  conceivably  be,  in  the 
case  of  Kant,  his  insistence  on  the  supreme  value  of  the  argument 
from  conscience  to  the  existence  of  God,  beyond  that  of  the  Onto- 
logical, Cosmological  and  Teleological  arguments,  though  we 
cannot  follow  him  in  his  denial  of  all  value  to  these  latter.  From 
Hegelianism  might  be  accepted  the  conception  I have  myself 
utilised  above  of  the  cycle  of  thesis,  antithesis  and  synthesis  as  a 
law  of  historical  progress.  Thus  should  Neoscholasticism  be 
scholastic  in  its  fundamental  principles,  which  are  the  permanent 
elements,  the  fundamental  constituents  of  human  experience  ; in 
its  detailed  teaching  largely  affected  by  modern  anti-scholastic 
philosophies.  All  that  there  is  of  positive  truth  in  the  phil- 
osophies and  in  the  various  branches  of  science  developed  by  the 
naturalist  trend  of  the  past  few  centuries  will  be  built  into  the 
Catholic  philosophy  of  the  future.  The  new  synthesis  will  doubt- 
less owe  a far  greater  debt  to  the  discoveries  of  modern  physical 
science  than  to  the  speculations  of  modern  philosophy,  since  the 
modem  age  has  been  the  golden  age,  not  of  metaphysics,  but 
of  the  natural  sciences.  So  shall  we  attain  a presentation  of 
Catholicism  that  will  be  indefinitely  fuller  and  richer  than  was 
even  the  presentation  of  the  thirteenth  century,  a synthesis  more 
adequate  than  any  yet  reached  by  human  thought.  Catholicism 
will  achieve  the  unification  of  a manifold  enormously  more  various, 
more  complex  and  more  extensive  than  that  which  was  unified 
by  the  schoolmen.1  In  this  progressive  unification  of  an  ever- 
increasing  manifold  Catholicism  will,  both  in  itself  and  through 
its  subordinate  philosophy  and  culture,  ever  more  and  more  fully 

1 This  can,  of  course,  only  be  accomplished  by  the  careful  maintenance  and 
frank  teaching  of  the  entire  deposit  of  revealed  dogmas.  No  portion  of  this 
deposit — e.g.  eternal  punishment  and  diabolic  possession,  and  in  ethics  the 
absolute  indissolubility  of  marriage — can  be  denied,  explained  away,  or  practically 
ignored  in  order  to  suit  the  passing  exclusions  and  imitations  of  contemporary 
thought  and  feeling,  in  the  name  of  a false  charity.  The  divinely  unlimited 
cannot  admit  of  these  human  limits.  I would  add  that  by  eternal  punishment  I 
understand  a final  self-exclusion  from  supernatural  union  with  God,  together  with 
the  consequences  that  follow  of  necessity  from  that  exclusion.  (For  diabolic 
possession  see  Appendix  to  Chapter  VIII.) 


UNITY  OF  GOD  51 

manifest  the  unity  of  infinite  multiplicity  which  is  the  nature  of 
its  Divine  Author — the  unlimited  and  therefore  all-inclusive  God. 

Nevertheless  the  present  existence  in  Catholicism  of  this 
potential  unification — indeed,  its  partial  actualisation — is  a 
conviction  which  the  study  of  other  religious  and  philosophic 
systems  brings  home  ever  more  strongly. 

Thus  in  the  development  of  society,  both  civil  and  religious, 
and  of  philosophy  and  theology,  the  law  of  progress  is  the  increas- 
ing unification  of  an  increasing  multiplicity.  But  the  law  of 
progress  is  the  law  of  Godward  ascent.  The  most  perfect  social 
organisation,  the  most  complete  philosophic  system,  and  the  true 
revelation  in  its  fullest  development,,  are  in  their  several  kinds  the 
closest  possible  approximations  to  the  Divine  life  and  Nature, 
because  they  contain  the  maximum  of  positive  being,  and  that  is 
the  maximal  participation  of  His  Being.  Thus  the  most  perfect 
unification  possible  of  the  greatest  multiplicity  is  the  fullest 
participation  and  reflection  of  God.  Therefore  God  the  Ultimate 
Reality  must  be  Himself  the  perfect  Unity  of  an  Infinite  Multi- 
plicity. We  have  reached  this  conclusion  by  the  consideration 
both  of  the  scale  of  created  being  and  of  the  nature  of  human 
activity  and  speculation.  In  both  the  same  law  was  found  to  be 
operative.  We  shall  now  attempt  to  reach  the  same  conclusion 
from  a more  narrowly  ontological  standpoint. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  positive  being  of  the  creature  is 
in  God  eminently,  being  a reproduction  of  His  Being  under  one 
aspect.  As  such  the  positive  being  of  one  creature  cannot  exclude 
the  positive  being  of  another,  since  both  are  ultimately  aspects  of 
One  Absolutely  Simple  Being,  the  Being  of  God.  In  proportion, 
therefore,  as  we  perceive  the  positive  being  of  creatures  in  its 
ground,  apart  from  the  limitations  of  its  finite  creaturely  embodi- 
ment, we  see  this  positive  being  as  one  throughout,  a representa- 
tion and  manifestation  of  the  One  Divine  Being.  For  the  external 
multiplicity  of  creatures  is  due  to  their  negative  distinction, 
whereby  one  being  is  not  another  ; is  constituted,  not  by  their 
positive  being,  but  by  their  creaturely  negation  or  limitation  of 
being.  When,  therefore,  that  negation  is  transcended,  their 
positive  being  is  seen  as  one  in  God,  their  mutually  exclusive 
distinction  disappearing  with  the  limitation  which  gave  it  birth 
in  that  Divine  all-positive  Ground  of  their  being.  Hence  in 
mystical  intuition  the  many  are  seen  as  one — aspects  of  one, 
positively,  not  negatively,  distinct,  the  positive  being  of  one  not 


52  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

excluding  but  including  the  positive  being  of  the  others.  The 
one  is  a harmony  and  the  many  the  notes  that  compose  it.  More- 
over God,  since  He  is  the  Fulness  of  Being,  without  negation  or 
limitation  of  any  kind,  must  be  without  the  external  multiplicity, 
the  negative  distinction  inherent  in  the  creature  as  such.  He  is  thus 
altogether  One,  the  Absolute  Unity,  the  Perfect  unification  of  an 
infinite  manifold  that  is  without  negative  distinction  or  mutual 
externality.  He  is  The  One  in  Whom  is  All,  and  in  Whom  All  is 
One.  This  Absolute  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  embracing  in  its 
all-inclusive  unity  the  positive  being  of  the  external  manifold  of 
creatures,  a manifold  thus  unified  in  its  Divine  Ground  and  Source, 
has  been  well  expressed  by  Dante  in  the  Paradiso,  when  he  says 
of  the  beatific  vision  : 

Nel  suo  profondo  vidi  che  s’interna 
Legato  con  amore  in  un  volume 
cio  che  per  l’universo  se  squaderna 
Sustenzia  ed  accidenti  e lor  costume 
quasi  conflati  insieme  per  tal  modo 
che  cio  ch’io  dico  e un  semplice  lume. 

Par.,  xxxiii.  85. 

“Within  its  depths”  (i.e.  of  the  Deity)  “I  saw  ingathered,  bound 
by  love  in  one  volume,  the  scattered  leaves  of  all  the  universe  ; 
substance  and  accidents  and  their  relations,  as  though  together 
fused,  after  such  fashion  that  what  I tell  of  is  one  simple  flame  ” 
(Trs.  Temple  Classics).  Theologians  express  this  Unity  of  God  by 
saying  that  He  is  each  of  His  attributes.  St  John  of  the  Cross 
dwells  on  this  doctrine  in  the  third  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame  of 
Love.  He  there  says  : “ We  must  remember  that  God,  in  His  one 
simple  Being,  is  all  the  virtues  and  grandeurs  of  His  attributes. 

. . . Since  He  is  all  these  things  in  His  simple  Being,  when  He  is 
united  with  the  soul  ...  it  sees  distinctly  in  Him  all  these 
virtues  and  grandeurs,  such,  for  example,  as  omnipotence,  wisdom, 
goodness  and  mercy.  As  each  one  of  these  is  the  very  Being  of 
God  in  one  Person,  either  Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost,  each  attri- 
bute is  God  Himself.”  Mother  Ceeilia  also  speaks,  in  her  treatise 
on  the  Union  of  the  Soul  with  God,  of  the  “ measureless  abyss — 
which  is  Our  God,  wherein  there  is  no  variety  or  diversity  of  things 
but  a most  simple  unity  in  His  Divine  Being,  for  the  entire 
Being  of  God  is  a most  pure  and  infinite  substance,  in  whose  unity 
all  differences  are  embraced  and  in  Him  are  made  life  and  pure 
substance.”  The  Unity  of  God  is  thus  the  Perfect  Identity  of 


UNITY  OF  GOD  53 

His  attributes.  But  the  Divine  attributes  themselves  include 
their  subordinate  ideas  and  forms  which,  when  externalised  by 
the  Creative  Will,  are  the  positive  being  of  creatures.  Hence  the 
Unity  of  God  unifies,  as  we  have  seen,  the  manifold  of  created 
being.  Moreover,'  since  the  Divine  Being  is  infinite,  it  also 
embraces  and  unifies  a literally  infinite  multiplicity  of  possible 
being.  The  Divine  Unity  is  therefore  the  very  opposite  of  that 
bare  and  abstract  oneness  which  the  mystics  from  Plotinus  down- 
wards have  often  been  accused  of  substituting  for  the  manifold  of 
human  experience.  (See  the  following  chapter.)  The  Supreme 
Unity  is  the  unity  of  infinite  multiplicity — not  the  negation  of 
multiplicity.  The  Absolute  Being  of  God  is  not  One  because  It 
abstracts  from  differences  and  is  bare,  abstract  existence,  for 
this  would  be  the  minimal  reality,  but  because  Its  Infinite 
Fulness  unifies  all  differences.  “ The  entire  Being  of  God  is  a 
most  pure  and  infinite  substance,  in  Whose  unity  all  differences 
are  embraced  and  in  Him  are  made  life  and  pure  substance.”  1 
For,  as  we  saw  above,  the  limitations  inherent  in  the  created  being 
of  diverse  creatures  are  absent,  so  that  they  are  no  longer  mutually 
exclusive.  St  John  of  the  Cross  expresses  this  truth  by  saying 
that  in  God  there  are  no  modes.  By  mode  he  means  a limited 
aspect  or  quality  of  being  distinct  and  ultimately  distinguishable 
from  other  aspects  and  qualities.  For  in  God  all  aspects  of  His 
infinite  Being,  though  distinguished  by  our  inadequate  and 
limited  concepts,  are  not  really  distinct,  but  are  identical  with 
His  One  Simple  Essence.  Therefore  does  St  John  say  that  in 
God  there  are  no  modes — that  is,  separate  aspects — for  such  modes 
belong  essentially  to  the  external,  mutually  exclusive  multiplicity 
of  finite  creatures.  God  the  Object  of  mysticism  is  thus  the  One 
Who  contains  and  makes  one  in  His  perfect  Unity  an  infinite 
multiplicity,  that  is  only  to  an  infinitesimal  degree  represented 
in  His  creation. 

How  God  is  Absolute  Unity  and  Simplicity  and  nevertheless 
contains  in  Himself  an  infinite  variety,  is  beyond  our  comprehen- 
sion. Why  it  must  be  so  I have  attempted  to  indicate  in  this 
chapter.  The  mystic,  however,  perceives  in  his  intuition  the  fact 
of  this  Unity,  though  not  its  manner.* 

The  Immanence  of  God  may  be  regarded  as  the  starting-point 
of  mysticism,  and  His  Unity  as  the  way.  The  goal  is  His  Trans- 
cendence, to  which  the  following  chapter  will  be  devoted, 

1 Mother  Cecilia,  Union  oj  the  Soul  with  God. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  III 

THE  EPISTEMOLOGICAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  DIVINE 
UNITY  AS  THE  GROUND  OF  THE  UNITY  OF  CREATION 

Since  God  is  the  sole  unification  of  created  multiplicity,  it  is  clear 
that  no  created  principle  will  provide  that  complete  unification 
which  would  be  the  unitary  explanation  of  experience  as  a 
whole.  We  find  in  experience  various  planes  of  being  which 
interact  and  are  interrelated,  planes  constituted  by  different 
principles  of  being.  There  is,  for  example,  the  plane  of  mass  and 
energy — that  is,  of  mechanism — the  plane  of  vegetable  life,  the 
plane  of  sentience  and  the  plane  of  intelligence,  with  its  correlative 
free  will.  Science  and  metaphysics  have  attempted  in  vain  to 
secure  a unification  of  experience  by  the  reduction  of  these  diverse 
planes  or  principles  to  one  plane  or  principle — e.g.  to  explain  the 
entire  cycle  of  phenomena  by  mechanical  energy,  by  life  or  by 
thought.  This  has  proved  a failure.  One  plane  cannot  be 
explained  in  terms  of  another.  The  existence  of  more  than  one 
principle  or  plane  must  be  admitted.  If,  however,  these  planes 
are  regarded  as  ultimate,  we  are  unable  to  account  for  their  inter- 
actions and  combinations.  To  maintain  this  is  to  deny  the 
possible  existence  of  any  ultimate  unity  and  therefore  of  any 
ultimate  intelligibility  of  experience.  We  must  therefore  posit 
an  ultimate  principle  of  unity  lying  beyond  and  above  these 
created  principles — the  common  ground  and  unification  of  them 
all.  This  must  be  either  a common  being,  self-manifested  in  these 
diverse  planes,  which  are  aspects  of  this  being,  or  a transcendent 
Being  containing  these  principles  eminently  in  Himself.  The 
former  alternative  is  taught  by  Pantheism,  the  latter  by  Theism. 
My  intention  here  is  not  to  discuss  the  arguments  for  and  against 
these  rival  unifications — but,  taking  theism  for  the  true  alterna- 
tive— to  point  out  that  in  God  alone  can  we  obtain  the  unification 
necessary  to  a complete  explanation  of  experience.1  From  this 

1 Science  having  failed  to  explain  phenomena  by  one  principle  alone  has  no 
ground  for  denying  the  possibility  that  the  ultimate  principle  that  transcends  and 
causes  the  others — the  Divine  Creator — can  intervene  in  the  series  of  phenomena 

54 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  III  55 

we  conclude  (1)  that,  since  the  Divine  Being  as  He  is  in  Himself  is 
unknowable  by  our  earthly  knowledge  (see  the  following  chapter), 
we  cannot  hope  to  attain  a complete  rational  explanation  of 
experience  ; (2)  that  since  we  can  apprehend  God  by  faith  or 
mystical  intuition,  we  can  obtain  a certain  knowledge  that  such  a 
unification  does  exist ; hence  that  experience  is  wholly  intelligible 
in  itself,  though  only  partially  intelligible  by  human  reason.  We 
can  and,  as  we  shall  see  later,  do  attain  a sense  of  the  ultimate 
unity  of  experience,  although  we  cannot  comprehend  that  unity. 
Moreover,  since  God  is  thus  the  sole  principle  of  complete  unifica- 
tion, religion  must  always  possess  an  epistemological  value.  God 
is  the  epistemological  unification,  because  He  is  the  ontological 
Unity. 

among  the  created  principles  which  there  interact,  Miracles  are  therefore  possible. 
If  in  other  ages  the  autonomy  of  natural  science  required  vindication,  to-day  the 
most  urgent  necessity  is  the  vindication  of  the  autonomy  of  theology,  metaphysics, 
ethics,  and  of  certain  aspects  of  psychology  menaced  with  servitude  to  the  prin- 
ciples and  methods  of  physical  science. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD 

1 see  a mighty  darkness 
Filling  the  seat  of  power,  and  rays  of  gloom 
Dart  round,  as  light  from  the  meridian  sun. 

Ungazed  upon  and  shapeless  ; neither  limit, 

Nor  form,  nor  outline  ; yet  we  feel  it  is 
A living  spirit. 

Shelley, 

Prometheus  Unbound,  Act  II.,  sc.  4. 

Yen  el  monte  nada. 

Finite  being  is,  as  we  saw,  constituted  by  two  elements,  a positive 
element,  which  is  the  external  reproduction  of  some  aspect  of  the 
Divine  Being,  and  a negative  element,  whereby  it  is  finite  and 
dependent  being.  This  essential  finitude,  this  negative  element, 
renders  finite  and  relative  being  infinitely  distant  from  the  Infinite 
and  Absolute  Being  of  God.  God  infinitely  transcends  creatures. 
They  are  related  to  Him  as  their  cause,  ground  and  conserver. 
He  is  not  related  to  them,  else  He  would  be  conditioned  by  them, 
and  to  some  degree  dependent  on  them.  This  would  involve 
some  being  possessed  in  common  by  Himself  and  them,  the  ground 
of  this  mutual  relationship.  This  common  being  would  be  a 
summum  genus  of  which  He  and  they  are  species — a common 
category  to  which  He  and  they  are  reducible.  Such  reduction 
under  a common  category  would  mean  that  God  was  not  Absolute 
and  Infinite  Being — but  relative  to  the  creation,  as  belonging  to 
a common  category  with  it,  and  finite  because  there  would  be 
some  other  being  outside  Himself  that  possessed  existence  as  He 
possesses  it,  and  by  its  existence  added  to  the  sum  of  being.  God 
would  thus  be  a part  of  a larger  whole,  which  whole  would  be 
greater  than  He,  its  part.  It  would  moreover  result  from  such 
relationship  of  God  to  creatures  that  the  ground  of  such  relation- 
ship— the  common  being  or  category,  uniting  both  terms,  was 
itself  the  Absolute — God  but  a subordinate  deity.  We  should 

56 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  57 

further  have  to  inquire  whether  this  absolute  were  Itself  related  to 
God  and  the  created  universe,  and  should  thus  be  brought  to  an 
infinite  regress.  Therefore  God  cannot  be  related  to  creation.1 
Nor  do  creatures  share  with  God  the  common  category  of  being. 
On  the  contrary,  created  being,  as  compared  with  the  Absolute 
Being  of  God,  is  sheer  not-being,  or,  if  we  consider  created  being 
as  being,  then  in  that  sense  of  being  God  is  not,  is,  as  certain 
mystics  have  said,  nothing.  From  the  pseudo-Dionysius  on- 
wards mystical  theology  has  dwelt  much  on  this  Divine  Trans- 
cendence and  on  its  consequence  that  our  knowledge  of  God  is 
negative,  rather  than  positive,  a knowledge  rather  of  what  He  is 
not  than  of  what  He  is.  Indeed,  it  is  a dictum  of  theology  that 
we  can  know  that  God  is  but  not  what  He  is.2  In  his  Mystical 
Theology  Dionysius  takes  all  the  grades  of  being  in  order,  from 
matter  to  spirit,  and  points  out  that  God  is  none  of  these.  “ We 
say,  then,”  he  writes,  “that  the  Cause  of  all,  which  is  above  all,” 
has  not  “ shape,  nor  form,  nor  quality,  nor  quantity,  nor  bulk — nor 
is  in  a place— nor  is  seen — nor  has  sensible  contact — nor  perceives, 
nor  is  perceived,  by  the  senses,  nor  has  disorder  and  confusion  as 
being  vexed  by  earthly  passions  . . . neither  is  It,  nor  has  It, 
change  or  decay,  or  division,  or  deprivation,  or  flux — or  any  other 
of  the  objects  of  sense.  ...  It  is  neither  soul,  nor  mind,  nor  has 
imagination,  nor  opinion,  nor  reason,  nor  conception,  neither  is 
expressed,  nor  conceived  ; neither  is  number,  nor  order,  nor  great- 
ness, nor  littleness  ; nor  equality,  nor  inequality  ; nor  similarity, 
nor  dissimilarity  ; neither  is  standing,  nor  moving  ; nor  at  rest  ; 
neither  has  power,  nor  is  power,  nor  light  ; neither  lives,  nor  is 
life  ; neither  is  essence,  nor  eternity,  nor  time  ; neither  is  Its  touch 
intelligible,  neither  is  It  science,  nor  truth  ; nor  kingdom,  nor 
wisdom  ; neither  one  nor  oneness  ; neither  Deity  nor  Goodness  ; 
nor  is  It  Spirit  according  to  our  understanding ; nor  Sonship  nor 
Paternity,  nor  any  other  thing  of  those  known  to  us  or  to  any  other 
existing  being ; neither  is  It  any  of  non-existing  nor  of  existing 
things,  nor  do  things  existing  know  It  as  It  is  ; . . . neither  is 
there  expression  of  it,  nor  name  nor  knowledge  ” ( Mystical  The- 
ology, chap.  iv.  5.  Trs.  Parker).  This  doctrine  is  not  agnosticism 

1 See  Hoffding,  Philosophy  of  Religion,  p.  42.  Professor  Hoffding  seems  to 
regard  such  relationship  as  involved  in  the  theistic  doctrine  of  creation  and 
attacks  the  doctrine  on  the  basis  of  that  misconception. 

2 This  remains  true  despite  qualifications  attempted  by  St  Thomas  in  certain 
passages. 


58  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

— because  it  is  based  on  the  knowledge  that  God  is  the  cause  of  all 
creatures.  The  agnostic  does  not  know,  if  there  be  a first  cause 
distinct  from  creation.  Even  if  there  be  such  a cause,  the  agnostic 
is  ignorant,  whether  it  may  not  be  more  akin  to  the  lower  forms  of 
created  being  than  to  the  higher.  The  mystic  knows  that  the 
first  cause  must  be  above,  not  below  “ His  highest  effects.”  We 
have  seen  already  that  by  the  doctrine  of  Immanence  God  is 
affirmed  to  possess  eminently  all  the  positive  being  of  creatures, 
and  therefore  that  the  more  of  positive  being  they  possess  the 
closer  they  resemble  God.  The  doctrine  of  Transcendence  supple- 
ments this  teaching  by  pointing  out  that  while  the  positive  being 
of  creatures  is  in  God  (in  the  sense  explained  above),  their  limita- 
tion, which  is  the  ground  of  their  exclusive  distinction,  of  their 
particularity,  is  not  in  Him.  No  created  being,  therefore,  whether 
material  or  spiritual,  can  adequately  represent  God  or  possess 
being  in  the  sense  in  which  He  is.  For  created  being  is  essentially 
limited  and  therefore  exclusively  distinct  or  particular.  The 
higher  it  is  the  less  limited  it  is — but  it  is  always,  and  must  essenti- 
ally be,  limited  ; and  by  its  limitation  exclusive  of  other  beings. 
God,  therefore,  being  unlimited  and  inclusive  of  all  being,  is  in- 
finitely more  unlike  any  creature  than  He  is  like  it.  He  is  there- 
fore unintelligible  because  all  concepts  or  images  are  essentially 
finite  and  He  essentially  infinite.  Another  reason  why  no  concept 
is  applicable  to  God  is  this.  As  Professor  Hoffding  truly  points 
out : “ It  is  a fundamental  law  of  all  our  concepts  that  they 
express  relations  . . . and  therefore  that  no  concept  can  be 
formed  of  a something  which  stands  in  no  relation  to  any  other 
something  ” ( Philosophy  of  Religion,  p.  69).  Therefore  the 

Absolute,  which  is  unrelated  to  anything  outside  Itself,  is  beyond 
all  concepts.  This  reason  is  reducible  to  the  former.  What  is 
related  is  limited  by  its  relationship.  A relation  is  a limit.  There- 
fore our  concepts,  which  always  express  or  imply  relationship,  are 
inapplicable  to  the  Unlimited.  Therefore  Ultimate  Reality,  the 
Unlimited,  cannot  be  represented  conceptually  by  a logically  co- 
herent concept,  or  conceptual  system,  but  only  by  series  of  para- 
doxes. (See  pp.  30-31.)  Hence  agnostics  infer  that  we  can  have  no 
knowledge  whatever  of  Ultimate  Reality.  For  modem  agnosti- 
cism and  positivism  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  un- 
reasonable to  believe  that  which  we  cannot  show  to  be  logically 
coherent.  This  assumption  is,  however,  false.  We  have  not,  we 
cannot  possibly  have,  sufficient  knowledge  of  Ultimate  Reality, 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  59 

nor,  indeed,  even  of  ultimate  created  reality,  to  give  a logically 
coherent  account  of  its  nature.  We  cannot  attain  a logically 
coherent  conception  of  the  nature  of  matter  or  force  or  life  or 
knowledge  or  the  human  soul — indeed,  of  any  pure  or  elemental 
substance,  but  only  of  their  effects,  compositions1  and  relationships. 
That  is  to  say,  we  cannot  comprehend  pure  or  elemental  substances, 
but  only  their  operations,  compounds  and  relations.  Thus  even 
our  own  soul  is  incomprehensible.  How  then  can  we  expect  to 
attain  a logically  coherent  conception  of  the  Divine  Being  that  is 
the  Ultimate  Reality  ? How  can  we  hope  to  comprehend  God  ? 
“ By  what  understanding,”  asks  St  Augustine,  “ shall  man  com- 
prehend God  when  He  comprehendeth  not  his  very  intellect, 
whereby  he  would  fain  comprehend  Him  ? (Aug.  de  Trin.,  v., 
sec.  2.  Quoted  by  Pusey  in  note  1,  Confessions,  vii.  2).  Never- 
theless we  have  knowledge  of  created  elemental  substances  and 
of  our  own  soul.  For  their  being  is  evident,  the  most  evident  of 
realities,  despite  our  impotence  to  comprehend  them.  In  like 
manner  we  can  know  that  God  is,  albeit  we  cannot  comprehend  at 
all  His  Nature.  Nay,  we  know  of  Him  that  He  must  necessarily 
be  incomprehensible,  a Being  of  whom  it  is  beyond  the  power  of 
our  understanding  to  give  a logically  coherent  account.  More- 
over, as  we  have  seen,  we  do  know  that  Ultimate  Reality  cannot 
be  without  certain  characters,  must  be  above,  not  below,  the 
highest  dependent  and  created  being,  more,  not  less,  than  our 
highest  object  of  knowledge.  We  know  also  that  it  must  be  free 
from  the  limits  of  beings  lower  and  less  real  than  Itself,  and  that 
since  the  highest,  most  spiritual  of  these  is  the  least  limited  by  the 
others,  the  Supreme  Being  must  be  altogether  unlimited,  uncon- 
ditioned by  and  independent  of  aught  outside  Itself.  Therefore 
they  can  be  neither  a portion  nor  a necessary  manifestation  of 
Ultimate  Reality.  This  knowledge  is,  however,  as  was  pointed 
out  in  the  introductory  chapter,  the  affirmation  of  theism  in 
opposition  to  atheism,  agnosticism  and  pantheism.  To  reject 
this  knowledge  and  its  consequent  theism  because  we  cannot 
form  a logically  coherent  concept  of  the  Deity  thus  affirmed  is 
unreasonable,  and  would  be  unreasonable  even  if  revelation 
and  mystical  intuition  were  entirely  wanting.  The  “ agnosia  ” 
of  the  Christian  mystic  is  far  removed  from  this  irrationally 
negative  agnosticism — or  more  truly  negative  gnosticism.  The 

1 1 refer  to  our  ability  to  reduce  compounds  to  their  constitutent  elements. 
Such  analysis  is  a conception  of  their  character  qua  composition. 


60  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Unknowable  of  Dionysius — known  only  in  “ ignorance  ” (agnosia) 
— is  thus  by  no  means  identical  with  the  unknowable  of  modern 
agnostics.*  The  mystic,  unlike  the  agnostic,  knows  that  every 
created  perfection — that  is,  all  the  positive  being  of  creatures — is  in 
God — that  He  is  infinitely  more  than  they.  He  knows  therefore 
that  in  Him  we  shall  find  not  only  all  the  positive  content  of  our 
highest  ideals  but  also  an  infinite  excess.  Since  our  highest  ideals 
are  essentially  limited,  their  fulfilment  would  be  the  limited,  the 
exhaustible.  But,  as  we  shall  see,  there  is  in  human  nature — 
and  this  is  the  basis  of  all  true  religion — a need  of  the  infinite,  of 
the  inexhaustible.1  The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Transcendence 
guarantees  the  fulfilment  of  this  desire  to  all  whom  God  raises  to 
that  fruition  of  Himself  which  is  above  conceptual  knowledge.  It 
also  involves  the  practical  consequence  that  the  way  of  approach 
to  God  is  progressive  detachment  from  the  limitations  of  creatures, 
of  the  particular — of  images  and  concepts — in  naked  adherence  to 
the  unlimited  and  unintelligible  Being  of  God.  This  doctrine  of 
the  Divine  Transcendence  is  taught  by  St  John  of  the  Cross  in 
numerous  passages.  “ The  whole  creation,  compared  with  the 
infinite  Being  of  God,  is  nothing.  . . . All  the  beauty  of  the 
creation,  in  comparison  with  the  infinite  beauty  of  God,  is  supreme 
deformity.  All  the  goodness  of  the  whole  world  together,  in 
comparison  with  the  infinite  goodness  of  God,  is  wickedness  rather 
than  goodness.  All  the  wisdom  of  the  world,  and  all  human 
cunning,  compared  with  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God,  is  simple  and 
supreme  ignorance  ” ( Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Bk  I.,  chap.  iv). 
“ Among  all  creatures,  the  highest  and  the  lowest,  there  is  not  one 
that  unites  us  proximately  with  God,  or  that  bears  any  likeness 
to  His  substance.  For  though  it  be  true  that  all  creatures  bear 
a certain  relation  to  God  and  are  tokens  of  His  being,  some  more, 
some  less,  according  as  their  being  is  more  or  less  essential  ” ( i.e . as 
it  is  less  negative  and  limited),  “ yet  there  is  no  proportion  between 
them  and  Him  ; yea,  rather  the  distance  between  His  Divine 
Nature  and  their  nature  is  infinite.  Hence  it  is  impossible  for  the 
understanding  to  attain  perfectly  unto  God,  by  means  of  created 
things,  whether  of  heaven  or  of  earth,  because  there  is  no  propor- 
tion of  similitude  between  them.  . . . All  that  the  understanding 
may  comprehend,  all  that  the  will  may  be  satisfied  with,  and  all 

1 I mean,  of  course,  subjectively.  The  Christian  religion  is  not,  as  the  modern- 
ist would  have  it,  the  creation  of  this  need.  It  is  its  satisfaction  by  a special 
Divine  interposition  from  without. 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  61 

that  the  imagination  may  conceive,  is  most  unlike  unto  God,  and 
most  disproportionate  to  Him  ” ( Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Book  II., 
chap.  viii).  “ He  that  will  draw  near  and  unite  himself  unto  God 
must  believe  that  He  is.  That  is  saying  in  effect,  he  that  will 
attain  to  the  union  of  God  must  not  rely  on  his  own  understanding 
nor  lean  upon  his  own  imagination,  sense  or  feeling  ” (for  these 
are  of  necessity  limited  and  therefore  negative  of  being,  as  well  as 
positive  of  it),  “ but  must  believe  in  the  Divine  Essence  (which 
is  absolutely  positive  and  therefore)  not  cognisable  by  the  under- 
standing, desire  or  imagination  nor  any  sense  of  man  ” (because 
all  these  essentially  involve  limitation  or  negation).  “ Yea,  in 
this  life  ” (when  as  yet  we  lack  the  peculiar  communication  of 
God’s  infinite  self-knowledge  which  is  the  beatific  vision,  and  are 
dependent  on  finite  modes  of  knowledge)  “ our  highest  knowledge 
and  deepest  sense,  perception  and  understanding  of  God  is  infinitely 
distant  from  that  which  He  is  ” ( Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Book  II., 
chap.  iv).  “All  these  forms  are  never  represented  so  as  to  be 
laid  hold  of  but  under  certain  modes  and  limitations ; and  the 
Divine  Wisdom  . . . admits  of  no  such  particular  modes  or  forms, 
neither  can  it  be  comprehended  under  any  limitation  or  distinct 
particular  conception,  because  it  is  all  pureness  and  simplicity.  . . . 
God  is  not  comprehended  under  any  form  or  image  or  particular 
conception  ” ( Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Book  II.,  chap.  xvi). 

This  doctrine  is  stated  more  clearly  still  in  the  second  chapter 
of  the  Treatise  of  the  Obscure  Knowledge  of  God,  a treatise,  be  it 
remembered,  possibly  the  work  of  St  John  of  the  Cross  himself. 
This  passage  is  of  the  utmost  importance  and  value  and,  indeed, 
summarises  the  entire  doctrine  of  mystical  negation.  “ Accord- 
ing to  the  teaching  of  St  Dionysius  and  other  saints,  there  are  two 
different  manners  of  contemplation,  for  there  are  two  ways  of 
attaining  knowledge  of  God.  One  of  these  is  by  affirmation.  We 
attribute  to  God  those  things  which  are  perfections  in  the  creature.” 
That  is,  we  know  that  all  that  is  positive  being  in  the  creature 
is  in  Him — but  in  another  way — without  the  limitations  of  the 
creature  and  therefore  with  an  infinite  transcendence.  “For 
instance  we  contemplate  God  as  infinitely  good,  wise,  powerful, 
merciful  and  the  like.  In  the  same  way  we  ascribe  to  Him  all  the 
other  things  that  are  perfections  in  the  creature.  In  this  con- 
templation we  ascend,  as  it  were,  by  degrees  from  the  perfection 
of  the  effects  to  the  perfection  of  the  cause.”  In  this  way  is 
excluded  modern  agnosticism,  which  admits  the  possibility  that 


62  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  cause  of  personal  spirit  is  an  impersonal,  unconscious  force — 
far  less  positive  and  less  real  than  the  effect.  “ The  other  way  is 
negative.  We  set  aside  the  contemplation  of  the  perfections  of 
creatures  and  consider  how  inferior  they  are  to  the  Creator.  We 
thus  ascend  to  contemplate  in  God  a Being  so  incomprehensible, 
so  superior  to  and  so  far  excelling  all  that  can  be  imagined,  that 
we  can  find  no  created  name  that  will  suffice  to  describe  Him.” 
Observe  that  this  negative  way  is  the  complement  of  the  other — 
God  is  all  the  positivity  of  creatures,  is  not  their  essential  negativity. 
Thus  this  negative  way  is  really  ultra-positive — it  denies  nothing  of 
God — except  limitation  which  is  non-entity.  This  point  cannot  he 
urged  too  strongly,  since  the  failure  to  understand  it  is  the  root  of  all 
the  attacks  on  mysticism,  alike  its  theory  and  its  practice.  “ In  this 
way  we  attain  indeed  to  a knowledge  of  God,  but  we  do  not  know 
Him  as  a substance,  or  as  goodness,  or  as  wisdom,  or  as  mercy  ” 
and  so  on.  “ For  this  way  consists  in  denying  of  God  any  attribute 
or  perfection  whatsoever,  to  whose  knowledge  we  can  attain.'”  * The 
emphasis  lies  on  the  qualification.  We  deny  the  attribute  as 
knowable  by  our  essentially  limited  knowledge.  “ This  knowledge 
is  therefore  called  knowledge  by  negation  or  privation,  because  we 
proceed  by  denying  of  God  everything  that  we  attributed  to  Him 
in  the  affirmative  way.”  NOT  of  course  in  the  sense  in  which 
we  affirmed  it — which  would  be  a contradiction — but  by  denying 
the  limitations.  The  terms  employed  by  mystical  writers — as  in 
this  text  before  us  and  in  the  precedent  text  from  Dionysius — seem 
indeed  to  imply  absolute  negation.  This  language,  however,  is 
employed  to  bring  home  the  fact  that  the  distance  between  our 
limited  concepts — even  the  highest  and  most  spiritual — and  the 
unlimited  Being  of  God,  is  infinite.  “ We  say  that  God  is  not 
being,  because  He  is  more  than  being,  not  wisdom,  because  He  is 
more  than  wisdom,  not  goodness,  because  He  is  more  than  good- 
ness, and  more  than  any  other  perfection.  In  fine,  we  come  to 
understand  Him  as  something  that  exceeds  all  the  sensible,  all  the 
imaginable  and  all  the  intelligible,  that  is  indeed  above  every- 
thing, that  has  being.  The  latter  way  of  knowing  God  is  higher 
and  more  perfect  than  the  former,  as  St  Dionysius  tells  us,  and 
Pope  St  Gregory  also,  who  says  : “ Then  may  we  say  with  truth 
that  we  have  knowledge  of  God,  when  we  understand  that  we  can 
know  nothing  of  God,  and  when  we  realise  most  clearly  His  in- 
comprehensibility, which,  because  of  its  infinite  splendour,  is 
invisible  and  impenetrable  in  this  life  ” (chap.  ii). 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  63 

We  must  remember,  however,  that  while  the  majority  of  our 
concepts  are  essentially  limited  or  closed — that  is  to  say,  all  con- 
cepts of  material  being  and  concepts  essentially  expressive  of 
created  spiritual  being — there  are  certain  which  are  not  thus  closed. 
The  primary  ideas,  such  as  being,  unity,  goodness,  truth  and 
beauty,  are  not  concepts  limited  and  therefore  strictly  definable. 
They  express  something  absolutely  positive,  which  admits  of 
infinite  degrees  of  fulness.  They  are  like  clues  whose  end  we  hold 
in  our  hand,  but  which  extend  altogether  beyond  our  grasp  or 
even  vision.  When  they  are  understood,  or  rather  used  in  this 
unlimited  manner,  as  unclosed  or  incomplete  concepts,  they  are 
predicable  of  God  formally — that  is,  not  as  merely  contained 
eminently  in  God,  but  as  being  true  of  Him,  as  they  are  in  them- 
selves. But  of  course,  when  used  thus  as  unclosed  concepts,  they 
are  themselves  transcendent  of  all  limits  and  created  understand- 
ing. We  have,  for  example,  a considerable  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  created  goodness.  Infinite  or  absolute  goodness  is 
transcendent  and  incomprehensible.  These  fundamental  ideas, 
however,  when  taken  as  limited  or  closed  concepts,  may  be  under- 
stood in  two  ways.  They  may  be  understood  of  the  maximal 
degree  of  their  presence  conceivable  by  our  understanding,  or 
they  may  be  understood  of  their  minimal  presence  as  the  lowest 
common  denominator,  so  to  speak,  of  all  the  things  that  partici- 
pate at  all  in  them,  a bare  minimum  attainable  by  abstraction  from 
all  these  concrete  participators.  Thus,  for  instance,  goodness 
may  be  understood  of  the  greatest  goodness  conceivable  by  us,  or 
of  the  minimal  degree  of  goodness  that  is  common  to  all  things 
that  are  in  any  way  good— the  bare  goodness  which  we  obtain  by 
abstraction  from  all  good  things.  In  either  case  they  are  no  more 
predicable  of  God  formally  than  are  the  concepts  and  images  of 
material  objects,  or  other  essentially  closed  concepts.  Unhappily, 
there  has  often  been  a confusion  between  the  unclosed  use  of  these 
ideas,  their  unlimited  fulness,  which  is  predicable  formally  of  God, 
and  the  abstract  minimal  that  is  almost  nonentity  and  is  therefore 
all  but  the  opposite  pole  to  the  Divine  Being.  Neoplatonic 
speculation,  whether  pagan  or  Christian,  never  freed  itself  from 
this  confusion,  from  Plotinus  downwards  to  Marsilio  Ficino.  It 
has  resulted  in  endless  obscurity,  self-contradiction  and  barren 
logomachy.  Hence  a prejudice  has  arisen  against  mysticism  as 
substituting  an  empty  abstraction  for  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
Being  and  Life.  This  substitution  was  never  really  made  by 


64  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

these  mystics  or  mystical  philosophers.  It  is  clear  that  their 
philosophy  is  based  upon  and  leads  up  to  an  intuition  of  the 
supreme  Reality,  as  the  unlimited  fulness  of  the  positive  being 
contained  in  ultimate  ideas,  such  as  Unity,  Goodness  and 
Being.  They  often,  however,  seek  to  justify  this  intuition  by 
arguments  which  are  guilty  of  illicit  transition,  from  the  unclosed 
fulness  to  the  abstract  minimal,  from  goodness  absolute  to  abstract 
goodness,  from  the  supreme  Unification  to  barren  oneness,  from 
fulness  of  Being  to  being  in  the  abstract  without  content,  from 
Being  unqualifiable,  because  containing  eminently  all  qualities, 
to  being  unqualifiable  because  every  quality  has  been  abstracted 
from  it.  A very  good  example  of  this  intellectual  confusion 
is  exhibited  by  Marsilio  Ficino’s  commentary  on  Dionysius. 
Language  encourages  it  and  the  baneful  prejudices  thence  arising. 
I trust,  however,  that  it  is  now  well  out  of  our  way  and  will  no 
longer  hinder  our  appreciation  of  the  true  doctrine  of  trans- 
cendence first  plainly  formulated  by  this  Neoplatonic  school  of 
“ mystology  ” — the  doctrine  which  this  chapter  attempts  to 
explain.  Though  the  ideas  which  can  be  used  thus  unclosed  are 
our  nearest  conceptual  approaches  to  God,  and  their  realisation 
our  nearest  actual  approaches  to  Him,  nevertheless,  even  when 
they  are  conceived  or  realised  even  in  the  higher  closed  manner  as 
the  maximum  conceivable  by  our  thought  or  practicable  by  our 
efforts,  they  are  infinitely  inadequate  to  the  intuition-union  of 
Him  in  Whom  alone  the  human  understanding  and  will  find  their 
last  end  and  complete  satisfaction. 

It  follows  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  transcendence  that 
theological  statements  are  true  rather  positively  than  negatively. 
Every  theological  term  or  statement  is  of  necessity  finite  and 
therefore  inadequate  to  express  the  Infinite  God.  “ Low,  defec- 
tive and  improper,”  says  St  John  of  the  Cross,  “ are  all  the  words 
and  phrases  by  which  in  this  life  we  discuss  Divine  things,  and 
utterly  impossible  (it  is)  by  any  natural  means  ...  to  know 
and  consider  of  them  as  they  are  ( Dark  Night,  ii.  17).  Never- 
theless, in  so  far  as  a statement  or  term  is  positive — that  is,  in  so  far 
as  it  affirms  being  and  denies  limitation,  which  is  absence  of  being — 
it  is  true.  We  cannot,  however,  get  rid  of  the  finite  and  therefore 
limiting  and  negative  element  in  the  statement  or  term.  We 
therefore  use  it,  without  thereby  binding  ourselves  to  this  nega- 
tive element,  and  we  posit  complementary  terms  and  statements 
which  deny  the  negation  of  the  first  term  or  statement.  All 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  65 

heresy  is  the  attempt  to  insist  on  the  truth  of  some  theological 
statement  in  an  exclusive  sense — maintaining  the  truth,  not  only 
of  its  positive  assertion  but  of  that  seeming  denial  of  other  aspects 
of  the  truth  which  its  finite  character  compels.  All  statements 
of  theological  truth  in  human  language  are  like  comets  whose 
orbit  is  not  closed.  As  the  path  of  these  comets  is  distinct  and 
clear  when  it  approaches  the  sun,  so  are  these  dogmatic  statements 
definite  and  intelligible  while  they  are  within  the  sphere  of  human 
reason,  that  is,  in  so  far  as  they  are  concerned  with  facts  falling 
within  the  sphere  of  human  experience,1  or  employ  analogies 
drawn  from  that  experience.  When,  however,  the*  astronomer 
tracks  the  comet’s  departing  orbit  farther  and  farther,  it  is  lost  in 
the  depths  of  space.  In  like  manner,  when  we  strive  to  penetrate 
the  meaning  of  these  dogmas,  it  vanishes  into  the  Infinity  of  God. 
Thus  the  study  of  theology  should  end  in  the  reverential  awe  of 
adoring  ignorance — not  the  ignorance  of  the  agnostic,  who  knows 
not  whether  the  ultimate  reality  possesses  the  highest  goodness  of 
creatures,  but  the  ignorance  that  realises  how  infinitely  below  the 
Divine  Being  is  the  highest  created  being,  how  infinitely  inadequate 
to  the  Divine  Truth  is  the  highest  created  truth.  The  study  of 
theology  is  for  the  Catholic  directed  to  a fuller  realisation  of  his 
faith.  But  the  author  of  The  Obscure  Knowledge  is  at  pains  to 
insist  on  the  apparent  paradox  that  the  end  of  the  faith  is  to  know 
what  God  is  not ; not  the  apprehension  of  positive  truths  about 
God,  but  the  full  and  vivid  realisation  that  He  is  unintelligible 
by  concepts  and  statements  intelligible  to  our  finite  understand- 
ing— the  realisation  of  the  Divine  transcendence  and  infinite 
excess  of  any  limited  being  or  concept.  Later  on  we  shall  con- 
sider the  teaching  of  St  John  that  faith  unites  the  understanding 
to  God  by  detaching  it  from  all  particular  images,  concepts  and 
ideas  which  as  such  are  essentially  limited,  in  the  loving  appre- 
hension of  the  infinite  and  therefore  incomprehensible  Godhead. 
This  is  indeed  the  work  of  the  infused  gift  of  faith.  The  study  of 
theology,  however,  should  lead  us  indirectly  and  externally  to  the 
state  to  which  infused  faith  leads  directly  and  internally.  “ In 
this  state,”  says  St  John,  “ they  feel  so  highly  of  God  as  to  see 
clearly  that  they  know  Him  not  at  all,  and  that  perception,  that 
His  Deity  is  so  immense  that  it  cannot  be  perfectly  understood,  is 

1 1 mean  within  the  totality  of  that  experience,  possible  and  actual.  A virgin 
conception,  for  example,  is  outside  the  sphere  of  our  actual  experience,  but  as  a 
physical  act  is  within  the  sphere  of  human  sense-conditioned  knowledge. 

E 


66  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICIS 

a very  lofty  understanding.”  “ One  of  the  greatest  favours  of 
God  ...  is  to  enable  the  soul  to  see  so  distinctly  and  feel  so  pro- 
foundly that  it  clearly  understands  it  cannot  comprehend  or  feel 
Him  at  all.  Those  souls  are  herein,  in  some  degree,  like  the  saints 
in  heaven,  where  they  who  know  Him  most  perfectly,  perceive 
most  clearly  that  He  is  infinitely  incomprehensible  ” (< Spiritual 
Canticle,  st.  7). 

This  truly  is  the  goal  of  the  mystic  way  to  God,  the  rest  of  the 
human  soul — to  lose  itself  in  the  Divine  infinity,  the  Divine  in- 
comprehensibility. This  negative  knowledge  is  neither  abstract 
nor  empty,  but  a limitless  fulness  that  the  soul  can  never  exhaust 
— no,  not  in  infinite  eternities.  We  shall  realise  better  how  this 
is  so  if  we  consider  a few  indubitable  facts  of  human  experience. 
Those  who  see  no  depths  in  life  beyond  the  superficial  aspects 
open  to  their  understanding  are  necessarily  dissatisfied,  dull  and 
blase.  Art  or  thought  confined  to  the  most  limited  and  superficial 
regions  of  experience  is  frivolous,  and  shallow,  and  soon  wearies. 
The  perception  and  suggestion  of  unfathomed  depths  of  spiritual 
significance  is  the  function  of  art.  There  is  no  beauty  where  the 
entire  meaning  is  obvious.  To  understand  the  entire  meaning  of 
a work  of  art  is  to  have  spiritually  consumed  it — to  have  eaten  the 
cake  and  thus  to  have  finished  it.  Certain  colours  and  forms  are 
beautiful,  because  they  are  in  some  inexplicable  fashion  suggestive 
of  spiritual  realities  beyond  the  comprehension  of  sense  or  reason. 
Others  are  ugly,  because  they  do  not  possess  tills  transcendental 
suggestion.  In  proportion  to  the  presence  of  this  suggestion  is 
the  degree  of  beauty ; in  proportion  to  its  absence  the  degree  of 
ugliness.  Transcendence  is  thus  the  criterion  of  aesthetic  worth. 
It  is  the  same  with  scientific  hypotheses  and  with  metaphysical 
conceptions.  They  are  of  small  value,  unless  they  open  out  in- 
exhaustible vistas  of  truth.  Indeed,  this  is  a universal  law  of 
truth-values.  Those  truths  that  are  most  particular  and  most 
limited  in  their  applicability  are  the  superficial  truths,  which  are 
merest  rudiments  of  knowledge.  The  great  depths  of  truth  are 
those  general  truths  not  limited  to  a narrow  sphere,  but  indefinitely 
applicable  to  the  most  varied  spheres  and  inexhaustible  in  their 
suggestiveness.  Here  then  is  our  measure  of  beauty  and  truth. 
The  more  limited,  particular  and  superficial  is  the  uglier,  and  the 
more  untrue  (in  the  ontological  sense,  of  course) ; the  more  un- 
limited, general  and  inexhaustible  of  significance — that  is  to  say, 
the  more  incomprehensible  and  mysterious — is  the  truer  and  the 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  67 

more  beautiful.  All  created  beauty  and  truth  are,  however, 
essentially  ugly  and  false,  if  regarded  as  ultimate  values,  because 
their  content  is  sooner  or  later  exhausted.  At  best  they  are 
messengers  of  Infinity ; they  cannot  qua  created  notions  or 
images  impart  that  infinity.  The  most  perfect  created  beauty, 
the  deepest,  widest  truth  of  creatures  are,  as  finite  being,  essentially 
limited  and  negative.  They  stimulate  a spii’itual  thirst  which 
they  cannot  quench.  Sooner  or  later  the  soul  touches  the  negative 
element  of  their  essential  limitation.  Thus  with  all  that  is  finite 
the  soul  comes  at  length  to  the  end.  Its  thirst  remains  un- 
appeased ; its  blessed  gift  of  wonder  is  replaced  by  weariness  and 
dissatisfaction.  Alexander  weeps  that  there  are  no  more  worlds 
to  conquer. 

Far  other  is  it  with  the  supernatural  grace-mediated  fruition 
of  God  begun  here,  consummated  in  eternity. 

In  the  infinite  abyss  of  the  Divine  fulness  of  positive  being 
without  limit,  never  to  be  exhausted,  the  “ good  containing  in 
itself  all  good  together  at  once,”  1 there  is  the  perfect  rest  of  entire 
and  everlasting  satisfaction,  a rest,  however,  which  is  also  untir- 
ing, eternal  energy.  This  all-satisfying  fruition,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  indescribable.  Only  the  limited  can  be  formulated  by  limited 
concepts  and  images.  The  soul  has,  however,  now  transcended 
all  the  barriers  of  created  limits  by  full  participation  in  the 
Unlimited  Being  of  God  that  is  transcendent  of  all  limits,  and 
therefore  of  all  created  being  in  its  essential  limitation.  The 
only  report  the  mystic  can  bring  us  of  the  Unlimited  Object  of  his 
intuition  is  that  of  an  ultrapositive  nothingness  eminently  con- 
taining all  created  being  and  worth,  and  nevertheless  infinitely 
unlike  any  creature.  God  is  all,  therefore  He  is  nothing,  for  all 
things  are  essentially  finite.  God  is  nothing,  nothing  finite  and 
particular,  therefore  He  is  All  and  the  positive  being  of  all.  God 
All,  therefore  Nothing,  Nothing  therefore  All,  absolute  Being 
uncreated,  therefore  absolute  non-being  created,  absolute  unity, 
therefore  the  unification  of  an  infinite  manifold,  unmoved  yet 
perfect  energy,  one  perfect  and  absolute  energy,  yet  unchanging 
and  unmoved,  possessed  of  and  containing  all  the  virtues  and 
qualities  of  creatures,  yet  possessed  of  none  as  we  know  them  in 
the  limitation  of  the  creature,  such  are  the  seeming  paradoxes  that 
bring  home  to  the  soul  the  Infinity  and  the  Transcendent  Majesty 
of  God,  until  contemplation  is  merged  in  sheer  adoration — and 
1 St  Teresa,  Autobiography,  chap,  xviii. 


68  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

our  sole  prayer  is  the  cry  of  the  Apostle  : “ O the  depths  of  the 
riches  of  the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  God.  How  incompre- 
hensible are  His  judgments,  and  how  unsearchable  His  ways.” 

Truly  O God  is  “ Thy  way  in  the  sea,  and  Thy  paths  in  many 
waters,  and  Thy  footsteps  shall  not  be  known.” 

This  doctrine  of  the  Divine  transcendence  can  alone  save  belief 
in  God’s  finite  self-revelations  and  manifestations  from  leading  to 
a limited  and  indeed  to  an  anthropomorphic  conception  of  the 
Deity.  If  the  background  were  removed  from  a landscape,  that 
landscape,  now  consisting  solely  of  the  foreground,  would  not  lead 
the  vision  out  to  the  far  horizon,  but  w'ould  imprison  it  within  the 
narrow  compass  of  the  objects  nearest  at  hand  and  most  immedi- 
ately visible.  In  like  manner,  if  the  background  of  this  Dionysian 
transcendence  were  removed  from  our  presentation  of  the  Catholic 
creed  and  practice — which  are  deeply  incamational  and  sacra- 
mental— the  Catholic  religion  would  become  for  us  limiting,  in- 
adequate and  anthropomorphic,  probably  superstitious,  and  in  any 
case  opposed  to  our  highest  thoughts  and  intuitions  of  the  Divine. 
The  presence  of  that  infinite  background,  on  the  contrary,  invests 
the  more  immediately  present  incamational  and  sacramental  dis- 
pensation— the  foreground  of  our  faith — with  its  own  infinity, 
rendering  these  incamational  and  sacramental  doctrines  and 
practices  avenues  to  the  Unlimited.  It  is  therefore  of  the  first 
importance  to  the  Catholic  desirous  of  a fuller  understanding  of 
his  faith  to  grasp  firmly  this  background  teaching,1  and  to  follow 
up  the  line  of  thought  that  is  based  upon  and  leads  to  the  Absolute 
Transcendence  of  God. 

This  line  of  thought  has,  I know,  often  issued  in  grave  error. 
In  the  hands  of  the  Modernists  it  has  led  to  the  doctrine  that  all 
theological  truth  is  merely  symbolic,  that  every  creature,  even  the 
Sacred  Humanity,  is  simply  a symbol  of  the  infinite,  incompre- 
hensible Reality.  The  fundamental  error  of  the  Modernist  is  to 
regard  Christ  crucified  as  being  as  wholly  and  as  purely  a symbol 
as  a crucifix  actually  is.  For  the  thorough-going  Modernist  Christ 
crucified  is  but  a living  crucifix,  and  nothing  more  than  that,  a 
representation  of  the  Divine  love  in  human  life  and  act,  even  as 
the  crucifix  is  a representation  of  that  Love  in  a lifeless  work  of 
art.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  fundamental  error  of  Modernism 

1 As  the  mystical  way  is  followed  this  background  becomes  more  and  more 
the  foreground  of  religion,  though  never  excluding  the  other  elements  of  our  faith 
and  practice. 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  69 

is  rather  the  denial  of  a supernatural  order  divinely  superimposed 
on  the  natural — as,  indeed,  in  another  work,  I have  myself  main- 
tained. Both  errors,  however,  are  but  different  aspects  of  one 
and  the  same  error.  The  rejection  of  a distinct  supernatural  order, 
which  enters  into  and  superimposes  itself  upon  the  order  of  nature 
at  special  times  and  places,  and  in  special  ways,  the  rejection  of  a 
special  revelation  and  a fortiori  of  a Divine  Incarnation,  is  essenti- 
ally the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  that  particular  concrete  persons, 
things  and  events  have  been  taken  into  a peculiar  relationship  to 
God,  a relationship  of  a different  and  higher  order  than  the  relation- 
ship of  creatures  to  God  in  the  natural  order.  This  rejection,  in 
turn,  necessitates  the  treatment  of  the  Incarnation  and  its  conse- 
quences as  mere  symbols  of  a spiritual  reality,  with  which  they 
possess  no  special  or  supernatural  relationship  or  union  whatso- 
ever. This  position  leads  inevitably  to  a denial  that  the  Infinite 
God  can  place  a finite  being  in  a peculiar  relation  and  union  with 
Himself.1  Such  an  assertion  is  an  unwarrantable  dogmatism — 
and  is  in  absolute  opposition  not  only  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Catholic  faith  but  to  the  fact  of  mystical  experience.  For 
mystical  experience,  thus  far  supporting  the  revealed  dogma  of 
the  hypostatic  Union,  proves  that  God  can  raise  and  has  raised 
finite  beings  to  a most  intimate  union  with  His  infinite  being. 
To  deny  the  possibility  of  such  a special  relationship  and  union 
logically  involves  the  assertion  that  all  created  being  is  equally 
distant  from  God — the  Unlimited,  and  therefore  equally  limited. 
This  is,  however,  patently  false.  Spirit,  for  example,  is  less 
limited  and  therefore  nearer  to  God  than  matter,  and  a good  than 
a bad  man.  Moreover,  unless  certain  creatures  were  in  closer 
relationship  to  God  than  others,  we  should  be  united  to  God  as 
well  by  eating  and  drinking  as  by  prayer  and  meditation,  as  well 
by  vocal  petition  as  by  the  sublimest  contemplation.  Moreover, 
self-denial  and  mortification  would  be  useless.  This  is,  however, 
in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the  universal  experience,  the  practice 
and  the  teaching  of  all  mystics,  whatever  their  creed.  For  they 
have  all  alike  found,  and  taught  others  to  find,  God  more  fully 

1 This  Modernism  is  not  all  so  modern  as  its  name  would  imply.  Already  in 
the  fifth  century  b.c.  a treatise  ascribed  to  Hippocrates  affirms  its  fundamental 
principle  and  its  logical  consequence,  sheer  pantheism.  “Nothing,”  he  says, 
" is  more  divine  or  more  human  than  anything  else,  but  all  things  are  alike  and 
all  divine  ” (Treatise  on  Airs,  Waters  and  Sites.  Burnet,  Greek  Philosophy, 
Pt.  I , Thales  to  Plato,  pp.  32-33).  Moreover,  Mr  Burnet  points  out  the  essenti- 
ally irreligious  character  of  this  Ionic  pantheism. 


70  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  the  more  spiritual — that  is,  in  the  more  unlimited — than  in  the 
less  spiritual — that  is,  in  the  more  limited — have  therefore  re- 
nounced the  latter  for  the  former,  and  have  taught  their  disciples 
the  same  renunciation.1  Hence  we  must  conceive  of  one  person  or 
thing  as  related  more  closely  to  God  than  another  on  account  of  its 
lesser  limitation,  and  of  God  as  operative  and  manifest  more  fully 
in  one  person  or  thing  than  in  another.  This  leaves  open  the 
possibility  of  a special  revelation  in  and  through  particular  persons 
and  things,  and  even  of  a hypostatic  union  between  a created 
being  and  God.  Indeed,  the  fact  that  in  the  natural  order  God  is 
revealed  more  fully  in  one  person  or  thing  than  in  another  renders 
it  probable  that  this  graduated  revelation  should  be  crowned  and 
completed  by  a special  supernatural  revelation  through  particular 
objects  taken  from  the  diverse  degrees  of  natural  being,  and 
through  personages  and  events  of  human  history.  Moreover,  we 
should  expect  that  the  things,  persons  and  acts  thus  raised  to  the 
supernatural  order  as  instruments  or  recipients  of  faith  and  grace 
should  be  as  diverse  in  their  manner  and  degree  of  freedom  from 
limitation  and  consequent  participation  of  the  Unlimited  Deity  as 
are  the  beings  of  the  natural  order.  This  expectation  is,  of  course, 
amply  fulfilled  in  the  diverse  measure  of  revealed  truth  and 
sanctifying  grace  and  consequent  union  with  God,  possessed  and 
communicated  by  the  instruments  and  recipients  of  the  Judseo- 
Christian  revelation  and  economy  of  grace  ranging,  as  it  does, 
from  the  first  gleams  of  revealed  truth  vouchsafed  to  the  patri- 
archs to  the  fulness  of  the  Apostolic  deposit ; from  the  grace  com- 
municated by  a devout  use  of  the  least  of  the  sacramentals  to  the 
grace  conferred  by  a fruitful  communion ; and  from  the  union 
with  God  possessed  by  the  most  imperfect  Christian  in  the  state 
of  grace  to  the  hypostatic  union  of  Jesus  Christ.  I pointed  out 
above  that  the  Modernist  places  crucifixion  and  crucifix  on  the 
same  level  of  pure  symbolism.  Still  he  would  no  doubt  admit 
that  the  crucified  Jesus,  as  a living  and  reason-endowed  man,  nay, 
more,  as  a man  of  supreme  holiness,  was  in  closer  relation  to  God 
and  more  adequately  representative  of  God  than  the  lifeless  image. 
In  making  this  concession,  however,  he  would  be  making  an 
illogical  return  on  his  own  path.  For  he  would  have  admitted, 

1 A certain  qualification  seems  required  in  the  case  of  Blake.  But  (i)  what 
was  the  degree  of  mystical  union  attained  by  Blake  ? (2)  Certainly  it  was  far 

from  the  highest.  (3)  His  life  was  in  practice  ascetic  and  involved  a severe 
renunciation  of  lower  goods. 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  71 

as  all  theists  must  admit,  that  one  creature  is  nearer  to  God  and 
therefore  more  closely  united  to  God  and  more  fully  representative 
of  His  Godhead  than  another.  Short  of  adopting  pure  pantheism, 
our  Modernist  must  concede  this  and  in  the  concession  he  has,  as 
we  have  just  shown,  conceded  the  underlying  principle  of  revela- 
tion and  the  Incarnation.  The  fact  of  diverse  degrees  of  union 
with  God,  even  in  the  natural  order,  pleads  in  favour  of  that  super- 
natural elevation  of  particular  creatures  to  a higher  supernatural 
union  with  the  Godhead,  whose  affirmation  is  the  fundamental 
distinction  between  Christianity,  with  its  doctrine  of  special 
revelation  and  the  Incarnation,  and  “ natural  religion,”  which 
denies  this  special  supernatural  union.  Mr  C.  Webb,  in  his  inter- 
esting Wilde  Lectures  on  Natural  Religion,  points  out  that  a 
religion  which  teaches  a special  manifestation  of  God  in  the 
peculiar  relationship  to  God  of  a special  concrete  fact  is  of 
a higher  type  than  one  which  rejects  any  particular  concrete 
historical  embodiment  or  manifestation  of  the  Divine.  “ So 
far,”  he  says,  “ as  by  ‘ historical  element  in  religion  ’ we  mean  the 
element  of  sacred  history,  a belief  in  which  forms  an  important 
element  in  some  religions,  it  is  a mark  of  higher  development  in  a 
religion  to  emphasise  this  element.  For  in  the  recognition  of  such 
a sacred  history  religion  comes  to  recognise  itself  as  the  most  con- 
crete and  individual  form  of  human  experience,  concerned,  not 
with  mere  abstract  universals,  but  with  concrete  individuals, 
those  and  no  others,  in  which,  and  not  elsewhere,  the  universals 
with  which  we  have  to  do  are,  as  a matter  of  fact,  particularised, 
apart  from  which  they  possess  no  actual  reality.  A religion  which 
involves  as  part  of  its  essence  a sacred  history  is,  in  this  way,  at  a 
higher  level  than  one  which,  while  setting  forth  certain  universal 
principles,  moral  or  metaphysical,  is  ready  to  symbolise  them  by 
anything  that  comes  to  hand,  as  it  were,  and  is  comparatively 
indifferent  to  the  particular  symbol  chosen  ” (Nat.  Theol., 
pp.  292-300).  But  this  rejection  of  the  particular  and  concrete 
is  the  very  essence,  not  only  of  Modernism  but  of  a certain 
theory  of  mysticism  very  popular  to-day- — a theory  of  mysticism 
such  as  is  exemplified  by  utterances  of  Miss  Evelyn  Underhill,1 
which  treats  the  dogmas  of  the  historical  religions  as  so  many 
more  or  less  indifferent  symbols  of  one  purely  spiritual  reality. 

1 She  is  not,  however,  a consistent  upholder  of  this  position.  The  book  in 
which  this  “ indifferentism  ” is  most  thoroughly  maintained  is  unfortunately  her 
latest — namely,  Practical  Mysticism. 


72  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

This  is  truly,  as  Mr  Webb  says,  to  reduce  religion  to  a lower 
level. 

That  the  existence  of  a special  revelation,  and  the  recognition 
that  God  is  revealed  and  possessed  more  fully  by  higher  grades — 
that  is,  by  more  unlimited  degrees,  of  being — are  thus  closely  con- 
nected as  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  principle,  is  shown 
by  the  history  of  modern  thought.  The  rejection  of  revelation 
has  tended  with  religious  temperaments  to  result  in  a pantheism 
which  deifies  all  beings  alike.  It  may,  indeed,  be  objected  that 
pantheism  is  the  result  of  a perverted  doctrine  of  immanence  and 
cannot  therefore  be  the  result  of  a perverted  doctrine  of  trans- 
cendence, and  further,  that  Modernists  are  hyper-immanentists 
rather  than  hyper-transcendentalists.  Extremes,  however,  meet, 
and  an  exclusive  doctrine  of  transcendence  will  be  found  to  issue 
in  the  pantheism  to  which  an  equally  exclusive  doctrine  of 
immanence  is  another  passage.  Some  Modernists,  and  these  the 
mystical-minded,  have  tended  towards  pantheism  by  the  former 
route ; others,  more  naturalist  in  temper,  by  the  latter.  Ultra- 
immanentism,  as  we  have  already  seen,  issues  in  pantheism  by 
exaggerating  the  participation  of  finite  beings  in  the  Godhead  as 
the  source  and  ground  of  their  positive  being,  into  the  assertion 
that  they  are  elements  and  modes  of  the  Godhead.  Ultra- 
transcendentalism, on  the  other  hand,  reaches  the  same  goal  from 
a different  starting-point.  The  truth  that  the  finite  does  not 
possess  Reality  and  Being  in  the  sense  that  these  are  possessed 
by  the  Infinite  Deity  is  perverted  into  a denial  of  all  reality  and 
being  to  the  former.  It  is  regarded  as  mere  appearance  and 
illusion — Maya,  as  the  Indians  term  it.  The  sole  reality  under- 
lying this  appearance  is  the  One  Absolute  Godhead.  This  form  of 
pantheism,  termed  specifically  acosmism,  has  been  incurred  by  the 
mystics  who  have  abandoned  theism  in  the  interpretation  of  their 
experience.  It  is  the  pantheism  of  the  Upanishads,  of  the  Sufis 
and  of  Eekhart.1  Thus  do  the  denial  of  the  reality  of  creatures 
and  their  identification  with  the  Deity  blend  into  a common 
pantheism.  Indeed  ultra-transcendental  pantheism,  when  it 
regards  the  finite  as  but  a manifestation  of  an  underlying  Godhead, 
ipso  facto  regards  the  finite  as  a mode  of  that  Godhead,  and  be- 
comes thus  identical  with  ultra-immanentist  pantheism.  Catholic 
mysticism  bars  both  passages  to  this  common  error.  It  bars  the 
immanentist  approach  by  insisting  on  the  absolute  distinction  of 

1 Who,  however,  did  not  intend  to  abandon  either  theism  or  Catholicism, 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  73 

finite  beings  from  God,  in  virtue  of  their  essential  finitude.  It 
bars  the  transcendentalist  approach,  and  therefore  the  mystical 
modernism  that  is  taking  that  way,  by  its  doctrine  of  special 
relationships,  including,  as  it  does,  its  doctrine  of  personal  identity 
between  a created  being  and  God,  in  the  Incarnate  Word.  If 
we  hold  fast  to  this  complementary  doctrine  of  special  relation- 
ship, the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  transcendence  will  not  lead  us 
with  the  Modernists  and  mystical  undenominationalists  to  reject 
historic  revelation  and  the  Incarnation. 

The  best  way  to  secure  our  firm  grasp  of  special  relationship  is 
by  tenacious  adherence  to  and  emphasis  of  its  supreme  exemplifi- 
cation, the  Divine  Humanity  of  Jesus.  For  God  has  united  Him- 
self with  and  has  manifested  Himself  in  the  Sacred  Humanity  of 
Jesus  Christ  after  a fashion  immeasurably  fuller  and  more 
intimate  than  in  all  His  other  unions  and  manifestations  with  and 
through  created  beings.  In  that  Humanity  dwells  bodily  the 
fulness  of  the  Infinite  Godhead.1  Hence  a truly  Christian  mysti- 
cism, while  duly  insisting  on  the  Divine  transcendence,  will  never 
lose  sight  of  the  Sacred  Humanity  of  Christ  as  personally  one  with 
the  all-transcendent  Deity. 

It  is  true  that  the  passages  in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel 
where  St  John  repeats  explicitly  St  Teresa’s  teaching,  that  the 
mystic  can  never  transcend  the  contemplation  of  the  Sacred 
Humanity,  are  interpolations.  Nevertheless  we  cannot  doubt 
that  they  truly  represent  his  opinion  on  this  point.  Mother 
Cecilia  devotes  a special  stanza  of  her  work  on  The  Transformation 
of  the  Soul  in  God  to  the  statement  that : 

In  order  to  travel  in  safety 

After  a Divine  fashion 

The  mysteries  of  Christ  have  been  her  [the  soul’s]  path. 

As  the  entire  passage  is  of  the  utmost  importance  I will  quote  it 
here  : “ It  is  impossible  that  the  soul  should  be  safe  without  this 
foundation  of  faith,  comprising,  as  it  does,  the  mysteries  of  Jesus 
Christ  Our  Lord.  It  was  the  Father’s  will  that  He  should  be  our 
guide  and  the  means  whereby  we  unite  ourselves  to  Him  and 
remain  in  union  with  Him.  Truly  then  did  our  glorious  Mother 
Teresa  of  Jesus  say  that  the  soul  cannot  ascend  far  save  by  this 
path,  and  that  we  cannot  attain  any  good  unless  our  souls  are 
stamped  and  saturated  with  these  Divine  truths,  that  is,  unless 

1 St  Paul,  Colossians. 


74  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

we  seek  the  Redeemer,  apart  from  Whom  there  is  no  redemption, 
and  unless  we  love  the  Beloved,  for  Whose  sake  God  loves  us.”  1 
“We  should  not  regard  it  as  a hindrance  to  beginners  to  contem- 
plate this  Divine  Beloved,  provided  they  realise  the  truth  of  His 
Godhead  and  contemplate  this  Divinity  in  union  with  His 
Humanity.  Those  who  travel  by  the  right  path  know  very  well 
what  assistance  they  have  received  towards  the  attainment  of  their 
spiritual  treasures  from  this  Divine  and  human  Lord.  Not  only 
is  such  contemplation  no  hindrance  ; it  is  a spark  whereby  the 
soul  is  kindled,  like  tinder,  with  the  fire  of  Divine  love,  so  that 
even  if  she  does  not  intend  it,  she  loses  all  thought  of  self,  being 
wholly  lost  to  herself.  She  has  now  entered  deeper  into  Christ, 
because  she  is  in  Him  and  in  His  Father  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  abides  far  more  deeply  penetrated  with  His  love.  Even  so  was 
it  with  St  Paul  the  Apostle  after  he  had  been  in  the  third  heaven 
and  had  seen  Jesus.  He  was  thenceforward  penetrated  so  deeply 
by  Jesus  Christ  that  he  could  say  : ‘ I live  no  longer,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me.’  This  exclamation  reveals  how  intimately  St  Paul 
possessed  Christ  within  himself,  since  not  only  his  thoughts,  but 
his  very  life,  was  Christ’s  and  he  was  another  Christ,  since  he 
possessed  Him  in  himself.  No  one  will  feel  any  great  surprise  at 
this  who  knows  the  capacity  of  the  human  soul,  capable  of  con- 
taining God,  and  therefore  of  containing  Christ,  Who  as  man  is  less 
than  God,  and  also  all  mysteries  and  scriptures,  in  a word  an 
infinity  of  things,  for  all  things  are  less  than  God.”  “ Now  there 
is  nothing  so  dear  to  God  as  the  only  begotten  Son,  in  Whom 
He  loves  us,  and  our  human  nature  thus  raised  to  Himself  in  the 
very  person  of  the  Eternal  Word.  We  cannot,  therefore,  possess 
truth  unless  we  are  united  with  this  Truth,  nor  can  any  path  be 
the  right  one  which  does  not  lead  to  Him.  The  soul  that  ascends 
highest  does  so  with  the  aid  of  this  greatness  of  Divine  Truth.” 

. . . “ The  soul  that  possesses  this  Truth  is  united  to  the  Essential 

1 This  doctrine,  in  so  far  as  it  demands  explicit  knowledge  of  the  Sacred 
Humanity  in  order  to  every  degree  of  mystical  union,  is  indeed  untenable  in  face 
of  the  indubitable  existence  of  true  mystics  outside  the  pale  of  Christianity  ( e.g . 
Plotinus,  Richard  Jefferies,  certain  Sufis  and  possibly  Buddha).  This  can  be 
denied  only  by  a refusal  to  attach  credence  to  the  self-reports  of  men  whose  sin- 
cerity is  unquestionable.  Such  treatment  of  their  evidence  would  invalidate  all 
appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Catholic  mystics.  In  the  case  of  Plotinus,  Fr.  Sharpe 
admits  at  least  the  possibility  of  the  genuineness  of  his  experience.  It  is,  how- 
ever, certain  that  any  mystical  graces  granted  to  non-Christians  are  granted 
entirely  through  the  merits  and  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  our  Lord — the  sole  name 
whereby  we  must  be  saved. 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  75 

Truth  Who  is  God,  Who  has  taught  us  the  particular  truth  of  His 
mysteries  in  order  to  our  salvation,  and  that  they  may  be  the 
means  and  foundation  of  this  supreme  transformation.  Since  it 
is  impossible  truly  to  reach  this  transformation  without  this 
foundation,  nor  can  the  soul  travel  in  safety  without  it,  it  is  said 
that 

In  order  to  travel  in  safety 

After  a Divine  fashion 

The  mysteries  of  Christ  have  been  her  path.” 


In  this  important  passage  it  is  clearly  laid  down  that  God  has 
raised  certain  creatures  into  a peculiarly  close  relationship  with 
His  own  Divine  Being — and  in  particular  has  placed  Our  Lord’s 
Sacred  Humanity,  created  though  it  was  out  of  nothing,  in  the 
relationship  of  hypostatic  or  personal  union.  We  can  never  dis- 
pense with  this  Incamational  and  Sacramental  economy,  nor 
transcend  Jesus  or  His  mysteries.  Since  Jesus  is  in  this  unique 
relationship  with  the  Infinite  God,  through  Him  we  are  united  to 
God,  and  His  Sacred  Humanity,  far  from  limiting  the  soul  by  Its 
limits  and  particularity,  introduces  the  soul  into  the  Unlimited 
Godhead,  with  Whom  It  is  personally  One.  Nevertheless  the 
mystic  must  make  this  use  of  the  Incarnation.  He  must  find  God 
in  Jesus,  and  not  rest  in  the  Humanity  as  such,  in  a knowledge  of 
Christ  as  man,  after  the  flesh,  as  St  Paul  terms  it.  This  is  clearly 
explained  by  Mother  Cecilia  in  the  passage  immediately  following. 
“ We  must,  however,  take  particular  notice  of  the  words,  ‘ after  a 
Divine  fashion,’  because  there  are  many  different  fashions  in 
which  we  may  profit  by  the  mysteries  of  Christ.  From  all  there 
is  great  profit  to  be  derived.  But  there  is  a certain  divine  fashion 
or  method  which  enormously  exceeds  all  others  in  its  power  to  bring 
us  speedily  to  the  goal  of  our  journey.  . . . This  Divine  method 
is  an  immense  force  and  light,  whereby  the  soul  knows  the 
Divinity  of  God  in  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  Word.  The 
Eternal  Word  has  exalted  His  Most  Sacred  Humanity  in  Himself 
with  an  infinite  excellency.  The  soul  contemplates  this  Humanity 
exalted  in  God,  after  a Divine  fashion,  and  apprehends  the 
Humanity  as  existing  in  the  eternal  Divinity,  in  a most  sublime 
and  most  Divine  experience,  which  cannot  be  explained  to  anyone 
who  has  never  known  it.  In  this  experience  the  God-Man  com- 
municates to  the  soul  a Divine  virtue  of  His  Divinity  and 
Humanity,  whereby  she  knows  Him  with  a knowledge  so  subtle 


76  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

that  it  cannot  be  described  by  any  other  name,  but  must  be 
termed  His  Divinity  Itself.  It  is  with  this  mode  of  knowledge 
that  the  soul  contemplates  and  knows  Him  in  all  His  mysteries  ; 
when  the  soul  is  penetrated  by  the  contemplation  of  His  wounding 
and  blood-shedding,  or  of  any  of  the  other  incidents  of  His  life, 
death  and  resurrection,  when  she  contemplates  Him  as  He  is  now 
in  heaven,  and  as  He  will  come  to  judgment — in  a word,  whenever 
she  contemplates  anything  wherein  her  Beloved  has  part,  she  is 
penetrated  in  conjunction  with  His  Humanity,  by  His  eternal 
Divinity,  and  that  after  a fashion  unspeakably  sublime,  which 
is  termed  Divine  because  it  proceeds  from  God  Himself.  . . . 
But  these  communications  differ  greatly  among  themselves,  and 
great  also  is  the  difference  between  the  communications  enjoyed 
by  the  same  soul  at  different  times.  For  although  these  truths 
are  always  the  foundation  of  her  prayer,  they  are  understood  in 
a manner  that  is  ever  more  and  more  spiritualised.  . . . The 
fashion  of  the  soul’s  ‘ apprehension  ’ of  Christ  ‘ and  life  ’ in  Him 
is  now  far  more  spiritual  and  Divine,  for  the  Divine  communica- 
tion has  now  been  completely  transferred  to  the  most  spiritual 
and  secret  part  of  the  soul.  . . . The  substance  of  the  soul  is  pene- 
trated by  God  and  His  eternal  truths  after  the  most  sublime  and 
spiritual  fashion  possible.  To  this  great  blessing  the  soul  has 
attained  by  this  Divine  method,  above  described,  of  contem- 
plating Christ  and  His  mysteries.  It  is  now  evident  to  what  a 
height  of  glory  and  bliss  the  way  of  this  Divine  Lord  has  led  the 
soul  from  the  beginning  onwards.  He  went  on  increasing  con- 
tinually His  love  in  the  soul  until  she  was  thus  Divinely  pene- 
trated by  Him  and  was  made  Divine  in  His  Divinity.  As 
the  soul  has  been  from  the  outset  grounded  in  the  truth,  she 
now  possesses  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
in  this  immense  and  Divine  Being  of  the  one  true  God  she  abides 
consumed  and  transformed  in  Him  as  in  her  true  and  last 
end,  having  begun  to  enter  into  that  immensity  which  has  no 
end  ” ( Transformation , st.  7).  The  way  of  the  soul’s  progress  is 
thus  not  the  rejection  of  the  Incarnational  and  the  Sacramental, 
of  the  particular  creaturely  fact,  but  an  ever-increasing  spiritual- 
isation of  its  understanding  and  reception  of  the  particular,  of  the 
creature.  This  spiritualisation  is  a progressive  apprehension  of 
the  Unlimited  Deity,  present  in  and  through  the  creature,  due  to 
the  soul’s  progressive  union  with  God,  to  Whom  that  created 
being  has  been  in  a special  fashion  united.  Why,  then,  does  St 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  77 

John  bid  us  reject  the  particular  ? Because  by  the  particular  he 
means  just  that  negative  element,  limited,  limiting  and  exclusive, 
from  which  the  soul  must  escape.  The  closer,  however,  a par- 
ticular creature  is  united  to  God  the  unlimited,  the  less  does  its 
particularity  limit  and  exclude.  When,  therefore,  the  relation- 
ship of  a created  being  to  God  is  that  of  personal  or  hypostatic 
union,  the  positive  manifestation  and  representation  and  posses- 
sion of  God  so  infinitely  transcend  the  creaturely  limitation  and 
exclusion  1 that  the  latter  becomes  practically  non-existent  for 
the  soul  that  contemplates  and  loves  the  positive  interior  reality. 
That  is  why  the  Humanity  of  Christ  and  his  Human  mysteries 
need  not  and  should  not  be  rejected  or  transcended,  even  with  that 
temporary  rejection  and  transcendence  requisite  for  the  mystic  in 
the  case  of  other  creatures  in  order  to  escape  their  limitations. 
There  must  be,  however,  that  increasing  spiritualisation  of  his 
contemplation  of  Christ  and  His  mysteries  which  is  indicated  in 
the  above  quoted  passage  by  Mother  Cecilia.  This  spiritualisation 
involves,  indeed,  a certain  transcendence,  in  that  the  soul  no 
longer  rests  in  the  external  and  human  facts  of  Our  Lord’s  life 
but  penetrates  through  these  to  the  Infinite  Being  of  God  con- 
tained therein — but  it  is  through  them  that  she  always  penetrates, 
not  beside  and  apart  from  them.  “ We  shall,”  so  Ruysbroeck 
summarises  the  Cecilian  teaching,  “ through  the  personality  of 
Christ  transcend  . . . the  created  being  of  Christ  and  rest  . . . 
in  the  Divine  Being  in  eternity  ” (. Adornment  of  the  Spiritual 
Marriage , Bk.  II.,  chap,  xlvii.  Trs.  Wynschenk  Dom.).  Thus 
the  Incarnation  and  mystical  negation  are  not  opposed,  but 
complementary.  We  must  also  remember  that  this  mystical 
spiritualisation  is  but  the  continuance  of  a process  visible  in  every 
Catholic,  whose  religious  education  is  proportionate  to  his  general 
mental  development.  (This,  unhappily,  is  by  no  means  always 
the  case.)  A child  conceives,  for  example,  of  heaven  and  hell,  of 
the  Trinity,  of  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  by  imaging  them 
after  the  fashion  of  the  sensible  phenomena  of  this  life.  Heaven 
is  a palace  among  the  clouds,  hell  a furnace  in  the  centre  of  the 
earth.  The  Trinity  is  represented  by  an  aged  man  on  a throne, 
a younger  man  on  another  throne  and  a dove  above  their  heads. 
The  Resurrection  is  the  revivification  of  Our  Lord’s  Body,  exactly 

1 Though  the  Sacred  Humanity  was  created  and  is  therefore  finite,  It  must 
not  be  termed  a creature,  having  received  the  dignity  of  the  Godhead  with  Whom 
It  is  personally  one. 


78  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

as  It  was  in  His  earthly  life,  and  the  Ascension  His  going  up 
through  the  white  clouds  and  blue  sky  to  a gem-built  palace, 
where  His  Father  awaits  Him  on  a throne  of  gold.  The  religious 
progress  of  that  child  consists  not  in  the  denial  of  the  positive 
truth  of  these  things  but  in  an  increasingly  spiritual  under- 
standing of  them.  The  prayer  progress  of  the  mystic  is  but  the 
indefinite  continuance  of  this  process,  with  its  progressive 
destruction  of  limiting  concepts  and  images,  and  its  progressive 
apprehension  of  the  unlimited,  and  therefore  unimaginable  and 
unintelligible  Being  of  God  present  in  and  through  the  mysteries 
of  faith.  Such  a progressive  spiritualisation  by  the  individual  soul 
of  the  created  elements  of  revealed  truth  has  had  its  counterpart 
in  the  development  of  revelation  itself.  One  very  important 
mode  of  the  Judseo-Christian  revelation  has  been  the  spiritualisa- 
tion of  already  existent  religious  ideas.  Thus,  for  instance,  Our 
Lord  took  the  notion  of  a largely  material  and  earthly  Messianic 
kingdom  and  spiritualised  it  into  the  teaching  of  a spiritual 
kingdom  of  God,  beginning  in  the  Church  on  earth  and  fulfilled 
in  the  society  of  the  blessed  in  heaven.  We  must,  however, 
observe,  and  it  is  important  to  do  so,  if  we  would  escape  the 
Modernism  easily  incurred  by  this  line  of  thought,  that,  alike  in 
the  giving  of  the  revelation  and  in  its  understanding  by  the 
individual,  and  in  the  continuance  of  that  process  in  mystical 
prayer,  the  process  of  spiritualisation  works  in  two  distinct  ways. 
Sometimes  the  conception  to  be  spiritualised  limited  a spiritual 
reality  by  a material  embodiment  which  was  inconsistent  with  it. 
For  example,  the  child’s  imagination  of  the  Trinity  ascribed 
anthropomorphic  limitations  to  the  Divine  Being  itself.  Spiritual- 
isation here  involves  the  entire  rejection  of  the  material  expression. 
Partially,  but  only  partially,  within  this  first  category  is  the  case 
of  a spiritual  reality,  which  has  indeed  a certain  external  and 
material  embodiment,  which  cannot  therefore  be  transcended  or 
rejected,  but  which  was  originally  conceived  so  externally  and 
materially  as  to  be  unduly  limited  and  materialised  by  that  con- 
ception. For  instance,  the  kingdom  of  God  has  its  external  and 
material  aspects  in  the  earthly  Church  and  the  future  resurrection. 
Nevertheless  the  original  conception  of  that  kingdom  so  limited 
and  materialised  the  spiritual  reality  as  to  destroy  its  unlimited 
significance  and  to  render  it  altogether  finite.  Hence  spiritualisa- 
tion meant  in  this  case  the  partial  rejection  of  the  concrete  material 
embodiment,  which  belonged  to  the  original  conception.  To  this 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  79 

first  category  of  spiritualisation  must  be  referred  the  spiritual 
understanding  of  prophecies  false,  if  taken  in  their  external  and 
material  form — true  in  their  interior  and  spiritual  meaning  or 
substance,  a spiritualisation  which  St  John  discusses  in  the  second 
book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  “ In  the  Holy  Scriptures,” 
he  says,  “ we  read  that  many  prophecies  and  divine  locutions 
disappointed  in  their  fulfilment  the  expectations  of  many  of  the 
ancient  people,  because  they  understood  them  too  much  accord- 
ing to  the  letter  and  in  their  own  way.”  “ The  chief  purpose  of 
God  in  sending  visions  is  to  express  and  communicate  the  spirit 
which  is  hidden  within  them.  . . . This  is  much  more  abundant 
than  the  letter,  more  extraordinary  and  surpasses  the  limits 
thereof.  . . . We  must,  therefore,  reject  the  letter,  which  is  of 
sense,  and  abide  in  the  obscurity  of  faith,  which  is  the  spirit,  in- 
comprehensible to  sense”  (ii.  19).  This  gi’adual  discovery  of  the 
true  sense  of  prophecies,  the  sense  intended  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  part  of  that  mystical  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  the 
Church  and  her  doctors  have  ever  used  to  interpret  all  scrip- 
ture whose  surface  meaning  bears  no  direct  reference  to  the 
infinite  and  spiritual  Reality  of  the  Divine  Being  or  to  the  self- 
manifestation, donation  and  union  of  that  Infinite  God  to  man.1 
It  is  otherwise  with  the  central  substance  of  the  Christian  revela- 
tion, the  Incarnation  and  its  extensions,  which  lie  outside  the  sphere 
of  this  first  mode  of  spiritualisation.  For  the  very  essence  of  the 
Incarnation  and  its  extensions  is  personal  identification  or  intimate 
union  between  the  limited  nature  of  man,  alike  in  its  physical  and 
spiritual  constituents,  and  the  Infinite  Creator,  a union  of  the 
transcendent  Being  of  God  with  an  individual  created  being. 
The  fundamental  ground  of  the  dogmas  of  Our  Lord’s  human  life, 
Church  and  sacraments  is  the  dogma  of  the  Incarnation  itself,  and 
the  inmost  significance  of  the  Incarnation  is  a unique  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Infinite  through  and  in  the  finite,  a complete  self- 
donation of  the  Infinite  to  the  finite,  a union  of  personal  identity 
between  the  Infinite  and  the  finite,  the  Infinite  remaining  all  the 
while  in  its  own  illimitable  infinity.  The  Nativity,  the  Cruci- 
fixion and  the  Resurrection  are  thus  no  mere  symbols  of  a spiritual 
Reality  that  is  not  bound  up  in  any  special  manner  with  the 
external  facts.  They  are  rooted  in  the  concrete  fact  that  the  Man 
Who  was  bom,  crucified  and  raised  from  the  dead  was  one  person 
with  the  infinite  and  incomprehensible  God.  Moreover,  in  the 

1 See,  for  a fuller  treatment.  Chap.  XIII. 


80  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

presentation  and  conception  of  these  incarnational  dogmas  by 
Catholic  theology,  the  external  and  material  element  has  never 
been  so  conceived  as  to  limit  or  materialise  the  inward  and  spiritual 
significance.  In  the  case  of  the  Incarnational  dogmas  the  material 
element  is  therefore  neither  wholly  nor  mainly  symbolic,1  and 
thus  is  not  such  a presentation  of  spiritual  truth  as  taken  literally 
limits  the  apprehension  of  that  truth,  and  therefore  an  element 
to  be  spiritualised  entirely  or  partially  away.  Therefore  in  the 
case  of  these  and  similar  dogmas,  spiritualisation  cannot  mean  (as 
it  does  in  the  case  of  dogmas  wholly  or  partially  of  the  former  class) 
the  rejection  of  the  particular  external  and  material  fact,  as  a 
limitation  of  the  inward  spiritual  reality,  and  that,  for  the  very 
reason  that  the  external  and  material  fact,  instead  of  limiting  the 
inward  spiritual  reality,  is  itself  given  an  infinite  significance  by 
its  peculiar  union  with  that  reality.  Spiritualisation  can  here  only 
mean — as  we  have  seen — the  ever-increasing  apperception  of  that 
infinite  Divine  reality  thus  so  intimately  and  so  indissolubly 
united  with  the  external  finite  fact. 

The  Divine  Being  is  indeed  so  infinitely  transcendent  of 
created  being  that  not  only  is  God  incomprehensible  by  any 
creature,  indeed  unknowable  by  any  created  mode  of  knowledge, 
but,  while  remaining  immutably  in  that  infinite  transcendence  of 
all  creatures,  unrelated  to  any  creature,  He  is  able,  by  the  fiat  of 
His  omnipotent  will,  to  bring  a created  being  into  a relationship 
of  personal  identity  with  Himself,  so  that  in  virtue  of  that  personal 
identity  that  created  being  is  no  longer  a pure  creature.  God 
in  His  infinite  transcendence  is  unrelated  even  to  the  Sacred 
Humanity  of  Christ,  and  nevertheless  that  humanity  is  so  inti- 
mately related  to  God  as  to  be  one  person  with  Him.  How  this  can 
be  is  beyond  human  conception.  It  is  another  insoluble  paradox. 
But  it  is  equally  a paradox  that  one  finite  being  can  be  nearer  to 
and  participate  more  fully  in  the  Infinite  than  another  finite  being. 
Must  not  all  finites  be  equally  removed  from  the  infinite  ? Yet, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  the  latter  paradox  at  least  must  be 
accepted  by  all  who  would  not  place  the  material  on  the  same 
level  with  the  spiritual,  in  defiance  of  the  obvious  absurdity  of  such 
equal  valuation.  Why,  then,  need  any  boggle  at  the  former 
paradox  of  our  faith  ? Indeed,  both  these  paradoxes  are  ulti- 
mately reducible  to  the  paradox  of  the  co-existence  of  the  finite  and 
the  infinite.  If  we  grant  this  co-existence  it  follows  that  some 

1 No  doubt  there  is  also  present  a quite  secondary  element  of  symbolism. 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  81 

finites  are  nearer  to  the  infinite  than  others.  It  is  undeniable 
that  thought  is  less  limited  than  material  mass,  life  than  lifeless 
energy.  The  less  limited  must  surely  be  nearer  to  the  unlimited 
than  the  more  limited,  and  nevertheless  both  are  infinitely  distant. 
Moreover,  it  is  equally  clear  that  if  the  finite  and  infinite  co-exist, 
the  former  must  be  related  to  the  latter,  but  not  the  latter  to  the 
former,  for  the  infinite  cannot  be  limited  by  relationship.*  The 
ultimate  and  basal  paradox  is  therefore  the  co-existence  of  finite 
and  infinite.  Yet  this  co-existence,  however  inexplicable,  is  a 
fact.  It  cannot  be  escaped  by  denying  the  existence  of  an  infinite. 
Whatever  view  be  adopted  of  the  nature  of  ultimate  reality,  there 
must  be  an  infinite.  The  all,  or  the  totum  of  reality,  cannot  be 
in  all  respects  limited.  If  the  universe  were  not  created  out  of 
nothing  by  God,  it  must  be  everlasting — i.e.  unlimited  or  infinite 
in  duration.  Moreover,  we  should  also  have  then  to  admit  that 
a thousand  years  is  more  akin  to  and  participates  more  largely  in 
that  everlasting  duration1  than  one  second,  because  the  less 
limited  duration  must  be  more  akin  to  and  partake  more  fully  of 
the  unlimited  duration  than  the  more  limited  duration.2  The  co- 
existence of  finite  and  infinite  is  therefore  one  of  those  antinomies 
inevitable  whatever  metaphysical  system  be  adopted.  The 
mystic’s  philosophy  of  the  Unlimited  and  All  Transcendent  is  no 
more  burdened  with  such  antinomies  than  any  other,  and  cannot 
fairly,  on  that  account,  be  rejected.  The  existence  of  these  final 
antinomies  or  paradoxes  makes  us  realise  that  reason  cannot 
wholly  explain  or  harmonise  experience,  cannot  solve  all  its 
problems.  If  it  attempts  to  do  so,  it  destroys  itself  and  the  thinker. 
Reason  must  recognise  its  limitations.  A culture  or  a philosophy 
that  attempts  to  obtain  a complete  rational  explanation  of  experi- 
ence is  attempting  an  impossible  task,  only  too  likely  to  end  in 
intellectual  despair.  The  existence  of  paradoxes,  such  as  that 
of  the  co-existence  of  the  finite  and  infinite,  should  not  be  the 
occasion  of  an  unwarranted  scepticism.  It  should  serve  rather  to 
bring  home  to  us  the  utter  incomprehensibility,  the  unfathomable 
mystery  of  the  Divine  Being  Who  is  the  Ultimate  Reality.  This 
incomprehensible  mystery  is  the  meeting-place  of  two  parallel 


1 Not  eternity.  That  is  disparate  from  becoming,  which  would,  however,  be 
ultimate  in  this  pantheist  universe. 

2 Yet  from  another  point  of  view  both  periods  are  seen  to  be  equally  distant 
from  the  infinite  duration.  Herein  consists  the  internal  self-contradiction  of  an 
everlasting  duration,  as  opposed  to  the  totum  simul  of  eternity. 


F 


82  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

truths,  incapable  of  union  by  our  finite  intelligence.  One  of 
these  is  God’s  complete  transcendence  of  creatures,  the  other 
His  immanence  in  them,  an  immanence  which  culminates  in 
the  Incarnation.  These  parallel  truths  thus  meet,  as  parallel 
lines  are  said  in  geometry  to  meet,  in  infinity. 

We  must,  however,  always  remember  that  the  perversions  of 
Modernism  and  agnosticism  are  perversions  of  a great  truth,  a 
truth  of  supreme  religious  value,  the  truth  that  the  Divine 
Absolute  Being  is  so  absolutely  transcendent  of  the  essentially 
limited  finite  being  that  even  when  that  finite  being  is  in  personal 
union  with  God  it  is  by  comparison  sheer  non-existence.  If  we 
therefore  keep  a firm  hold  on  two  truths  (1)  in  the  sense  in  which 
God  is,  every  creature  is  not ; (2)  through  Christ,  His  Church  and 
His  sacraments,  human  nature  has  been  brought  into  a most 
intimate  relationship  with  God,  we  shall  avoid  the  false  agnos- 
ticism of  the  agnostic  and  the  Modernist,  which  is  the  destruction  of 
faith,  and  we  shall  at  the  same  time  maintain  the  true  agnosticism 
of  the  mystic  which  is  the  perfection  of  faith.  We  shall  realise 
that  all  that  is  revealed  to  us  of  God  in  Christ  and  His  mysteries 
is  absolutely  and  eternally  true — but  that  it  is  also  infinitely  in- 
adequate to  exhaust  or  express  the  Divine  Being  as  It  is  in  Itself. 
We  shall  then  perceive  that  of  sheer  necessity  the  dogmas  of 
theology  cannot  be  grasped  or  harmonised  by  human  reason,  that 
any  religious  system  which  is  completely  harmonious  and  in- 
telligible is  ipso  facto  proved  to  be  false,  and  that  rationalism  in 
religion  is  supremely  irrational,  because  it  limits  God  by  the  con- 
cepts and  images  of  our  finite  intelligence,  just  as  agnosticism  is 
irrational,  because  it  does  not  see  that  God  the  first  cause  must 
infinitely  transcend  the  highest  categories  of  dependent  being,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  infraspiritual  or  infrapersonal.  Like  the 
transcendence  the  unity  and  the  immanence  of  God  are  ultimately 
reducible  to  the  fact  that  Infinite  Being,  as  unlimited,  excludes  all 
negation  and  exclusive  distinction.  “ I Am  that  I Am  ” was  the 
Divine  title  revealed  to  the  Jews  by  God  Himself.  In  this  I Am 
are  constituted  the  Divine  Immanence,  as  the  ground  of  all  created 
being — which  is  essentially  relative  and  dependent  on  the  Divine 
Being  of  which  it  is  but  a reflection  and  participation,  the  Divine 
Unity,  for  absolute  positivity  admits  of  no  mutually  exclusive 
differences,  and  the  Divine  Transcendence,  for  the  Unlimited 
Being  must  be  infinitely  distinct  from  being  which  is  essentially 
limited  and  as  limited  negative.  As  Moses  of  old  beheld  Jahwe 


THE  TRANSCENDENCE  OF  GOD  83 

in  the  bush  burnt  yet  unconsumed  by  His  Presence,  so  to  the 
Christian  mystic  is  revealed  this  Absolute  and  Divine  “ I Am,” 
burning  through  the  universe  of  finite  being  which  nevertheless  is 
not,  as  pantheism  falsely  teaches,  consumed  by  His  Indwelling. 
Let  us  therefore  who  draw  nigh  to  behold  with  him  this  Divine 
Vision  put  off  the  shoes  of  human  reason 1 and  adore  the  Mystery 
of  Infinite  Godhead  Immanent  in  all  things,  yet  of  all  transcend- 
ent, that  makes  this  world  of  creatures  wherein  we  live  in  very 
truth  a holy  ground. 

Note  1.  The  Divine  Purity 

The  Divine  Purity  is  a subordinate  aspect  of  the  Divine 
Transcendence  of  all  limits.  In  chap.  ix.  of  the  first  section 
of  vol.  ii.  of  Modern  Painters,  Ruskin  maintains  that  purity  is 
essentially  energy  unimpeded.  Theology  teaches  that  God  is 
perfect  energy — essential  and  absolute  energy,  the  actus  purus. 
By  this  actus  purus  is  meant  that  the  Divine  Being  is  always  one 
fulness  of  act  without  any  potentiality  as  yet  unactualised. 
Unactualised  potentiality  in  creatures  arises  from  their  limitations, 
which  give  rise  to  division  and  opposition.  Pure  energy  is 
absolute  positivity,  without  that  defect  of  being  which  constitutes 
the  unrealised  potentialities  of  creatures.  Created  substances  are 
pure  in  so  far  as  they  possess  their  fulness,  their  completion  of 
being  and  energy,  unalloyed  and  unimpeded  by  alien  substances. 
Pure  wine,  for  instance,  has  not  its  vinous  properties  and  effects 
impeded  by  the  presence  of  non-vinous  liquids.  Pure  love  is 
not  impeded  in  its  operation  towards  its  object  by  the  presence 
of  hostile  or  even  neutral  will  aims. 

God  therefore  is  essential  purity  because  a Being  unaffected 
by  the  presence  and  action  of  any  alien  nature,  a fulness  of  energy 
unimpeded  by  any  limitations.  St  John  of  the  Cross  has  stated 
this  in  a passage  already  quoted  from  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel, 
ii.  16.  “ The  Divine  Wisdom  . . . admits  of  no  such  particular 

ways  [modes],  neither  can  it  be  comprehended  under  any  limita- 
tion or  distinct  particular  knowledge,  because  it  is  all  pureness 
and  simplicity.”  God’s  purity  is  thus  His  perfect  energy;  that 
is,  His  absolute  positivity  without  the  negative  element  involved 
in  the  finite  and  relative  being  of  creatures.  God’s  purity  is 
therefore  His  Absolute  Being,  the  I Am  under  another  aspect. 

1 Like  shoes,  necessary  in  its  own  lower  sphere. 


84  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Mother  Cecilia  says  : “ The  Divine  Being  is  termed  pure  on 
account  of  the  simplicity  of  His  most  pure  substance.”  God  is 
here  termed  pure,  “ not  only  because  He  is  most  clean  and  free 
from  all  stain,  but  from  the  nature  of  His  essence  which  trans- 
cends all  that  can  be  attributed  to  it,  and  because  He  is  a pure 
act  working  in  Himself,  through  Himself,  and  for  Himself  ” 
{Transformation,  st.  1). 

Note  2.  Personal  and  Impersonal  Representations  of  the  Godhead 

Personal  finite  spirits,  human  spirits  at  least,  lack  certain 
positive  characters  of  material  and  impersonal  forces.  A human 
soul  does  not,  for  instance,  possess  the  power  and  scope  of  an 
elemental  force  of  nature,  though  higher  far  in  the  scale  of  being. 
Now,  as  has  been  already  pointed  out,  the  Infinite  Being  of  God  is 
eminently  all  that  is  positively  existent  in  creatures.  Therefore 
the  vastness  of  an  impersonal  force  represents  an  aspect  of  His 
being,  not  represented  by  the  human  soul.  For  this  reason  mystics 
are  obliged  to  use  images  taken  from  impersonal  forces  and 
elements,  to  indicate  the  Divine  Being,  side  by  side  with  intimately 
personal  images.  The  philosopher  of  mysticism  will  perhaps 
incline  more  to  the  impersonal  images — the  practical  mystic  will 
be  attracted  to  the  more  personal.1  Both  are  true  positively,  both 
false  negatively,  true  in  their  affirmations,  false  in  their  limitations. 
As  the  personal  images  or  categories  have  more  positive  being 
than  the  impersonal,  they  are  more  adequate  representations  of 
God  than  the  latter,  though  ever  infinitely  inadequate. 

1 Nevertheless  it  is  largely  a matter  of  individual  temperament.  St  John  of 
the  Cross  prefers  personal,  Mother  Cecilia  impersonal,  imagery. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 


1.  Relation  of  the  Infrarational  Creation  to  God. — Before  we 
consider  the  relation  between  the  human  soul  and  God,  it  would  be 
well  to  say  a little  as  to  the  relation  of  the  infrarational  creature 
to  the  Creator.  One  great  purpose  of  the  infrarational  creation 
is  certainly  the  service  of  man,  and  that  in  two  ways — by  minister- 
ing to  his  material  being  and  well-being,  and  by  ministering  to  his 
spiritual  well-being.  This  latter  ministry  itself  falls  under  two 
heads.  The  infrarational  creation  ministers  to  man’s  spiritual 
good,  by  giving  him  occasion  to  glorify  God  in  thanksgiving  for 
the  use  he  has  of  creatures — but  far  more  by  man’s  knowledge  and 
praise  of  Him  as  the  first  cause  and  eminent  possessor  of  all  their 
perfections — that  is,  of  their  positive  being.  Material  creatures 
are  sacraments  of  spiritual  realities,  the  Divine  attributes  which 
they  represent.  To  use  nature  as  a sacrament  is  to  be  brought 
into  contact  with  its  underlying  ground,  the  Divine  Being  in  His 
various  aspects.  This  is  the  noblest  use  of  the  visible  creation. 
Since  the  fall  the  infrarational  creation  subserves  also  man’s 
spiritual  well-being  as  an  obstacle  to  be  overcome — that  is,  as  a 
more  or  less  recalcitrant  matter,  to  be  moulded  with  great  toil  to 
human  and  spiritual  ends,  a task  which  brings  into  play  the  moral 
virtues.  It  subserves  man  in  this  office  by  way  of  temptations  to 
sensual  pleasure,  the  resistance  to  which  purges  and  perfects  his 
spiritual  life.  It  subserves  him  also  as  a scourge  for  his  discipline 
and  chastisement.  But  this  ministry  to  rational  creatures  cannot 
exhaust  the  significance  of  the  infrarational  creation — no,  not  if 
every  planet  and  star  in  space  were  populated  with  rational  beings. 
The  investigations  of  modern  science  bring  home  to  us  with  ever- 
increasing  force  the  incalculably  immense  amount  of  inorganic 
elements  and  forces  and  the  incalculably  vast  multitude  of  living 
beings,  vegetable  and  animal,  that  have  only  the  most  accidental 
reference— often  none  at  all- — to  man  and  his  needs.  But  we  have 
seen  already  that  all  created  being  is  a representation  of  the  Divine 
Being  under  various  aspects.  As  such  it  is  not  only  sacramental 
to  man  of  that  Being  but  is  in  itself  an  external  manifestation  of 
85 


86  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

God,  which  is  His  accidental  glory.  A difficulty  arises  in  the  case 
of  certain  creatures — for  example,  the  octopus — which  seem  to 
possess  ugliness  in  the  sense  of  a privation  of  due  form — not  its 
mere  absence,  which  would  be  a foil  to  the  beauty  of  other 
creatures.  Such  ugliness  seems  sacramental  rather  of  spiritual 
evil  than  of  spiritual  good.  This  privative,  and  therefore  repellent, 
ugliness  is  emphasised  by  Richard  Jefferies,  not,  I think,  without 
exaggeration,  in  The  Story  of  my  Heart.  We  should  remember 
that  the  liturgy  and  tradition  of  the  Church  seem  to  presuppose  a 
certain  power  of  the  evil  spirits  over  the  lower  creation.  For  the 
reality  of  this  power  there  is  ample  warrant.  It  is  presupposed 
by  the  forms  of  benediction  employed  by  the  Church,  also  by 
certain  scriptural  expressions — for  example,  “ the  powers  of  the 
air,”  “the  rulers  of  this  darkness,”  “the  prince  of  this  world 
cometh.”  We  may  also  compare  many  well-attested  incidents 
in  the  lives  of  saints.  Its  exact  nature  and  extent  are 
altogether  indefinite  and  unknown.  Might  it  not  extend  to  an 
interference  with  the  course  of  evolution,  introducing  into  it  an 
element  of  privative  ugliness  ? If  we  admit  this  explanation  we 
are  surely  compelled  by  the  discoveries  of  geology  to  postulate 
with  Mr  Webb  the  existence  and  activity  of  this  evil  power  in  the 
world  before  man  fell  or,  indeed,  had  any  existence.  Whether  or 
no  the  evil  spirits  have  thus  interfered  with  evolution,  the  strife 
and  waste  so  obvious,  alike  in  the  present  condition  of  the  earth, 
as  in  the  course  of  its  past  history,  are,  to  a very  great  degree  at 
least,  due  to  the  very  nature  of  the  limited,  to  the  limit  inherent 
in  every  creature  not  emancipated  by  supernatural  union  with 
God.  Though  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  actual  suffering  and 
ugliness  existent  in  the  extrahuman  creation  be  explicable  without 
the  operation  of  the  privative  limit  of  moral  evil,  it  is  surely  un- 
deniable that  the  limit  as  such  involves  defect,  and  therefore  a 
certain  degree  of  inevitable  physical  evil.  Moreover,  the  limit 
involves  exclusion  and  consequent  division,  and  therefore  strife.1 
Nevertheless,  despite  all  this  waste,  strife,  suffering  and  ugliness, 
creatures  are  essentially  representations  and  sacraments  of  the 
Godhead,  and  that  to  the  degree  of  their  positive  being. 

Moreover  God  is  the  end  of  creation.  Every  created  being 
tends  to  become  as  like  to  God  as  it  can.  This  is  true,  alike  of  the 

i In  the  new  heaven  and  earth  of  the  Resurrection  this  defect  arising  from  the 
limit  will,  in  so  far  as  it  involves  ugliness,  pain  or  strife,  be  remedied  by  a special 
dispensation  of  supernatural  power. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 87 

individual,  of  the  species,  of  the  class  and  of  the  entire  Universe. 
The  course  of  evolution  is  no  blind  and  aimless  striving,  but  is  a 
purposive  progress.  This  progress  is  a gradual  perfecting  of  the 
subject  of  evolution.  The  effect  and  aim  of  this  evolutionary- 
progress  is  the  actualisation  of  the  latent  possibilities  of  its  subject 
being.  But  we  have  seen  already  that  the  more  of  positive  being 
there  is  in  any  creature,  and  therefore  the  more  its  potentiality  is 
actualised,  the  better  does  it  represent  the  Divine  Being,  for  the 
more  being  a creature  possesses  the  closer  does  it  approach  (though 
always  infinitely  distant  from)  the  fulness  of  Absolute  Being. 
Moreover  the  greater  the  multiplicity  of  forms  of  being  and  life 
harmonised  in  the  unity  of  the  specific  character,  and  of  the 
individual  life,  the  fuller  is  the  revelation  of  God,  Whose  attributes 
and  their  unity  are  manifested  thereby.  No  one  has  more  strongly 
insisted  on  the  onward  striving  energy  of  life  than  M.  Bergson. 
He  has,  however,  treated  this  striving  as  blind  and  aimless. 
Certainly  it  is  so  in  the  individuals  who  partake  of  it  in  various 
grades.  To  treat  it  as  in  itself  aimless  is,  however,  the  abandon- 
ment of  explanation — the  acknowledged  bankruptcy  of  philosophy. 
How  infinitely  rich,  on  the  contrary,  is  the  Christian  conception 
outlined  above.  All  the  marvellous  contrivances  and  adaptations, 
far  exceeding  any  possible  conscious  intention  of  their  subjects, 
which  are  revealed  to  us  by  science,  and  whose  immediate  end  is 
the  conservation  and  reproduction  of  the  species  and  whose  more 
indirect  end  is  its  evolution,  are  seen  to  be  a progressive  mani- 
festation of  God,  an  increasing  approach  to  His  Divine  Being. 
On  a polyphyletic  view  of  evolution  this  manifestation  of  God  and 
approach  to  His  Being  will  be  bounded  by  the  essential  limitation 
of  certain  fundamental  types.  When  this  limitation  is  reached  the 
capacity  of  each  type  is  exhausted  and  God’s  being  has  been  shown 
forth  and  represented  to  the  utmost  extent  possible  to  that  type. 
If,  however,  we  accept  a monophyletic  view  of  evolution,  not  only 
will  the  potentialities  of  each  type  form  be  thus  actualised  but 
new  potentialities  will  be  added  in  the  course  of  evolution.  For 
we  surely  cannot  believe  that  all  the  high  and  complex  forms  of 
life  and  sentience  to  be  found  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms 
were  present  potentially  in  the  most  rudimentary  organism.  They 
must  therefore  have  been  added  by  the  stimulus  and  operation 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  immanent  in  the  evolutionary  process.  These 
new  elements,  however,  like  the  actualisation  of  potencies  con- 
tained already  in  the  type  forms,  only  to  a far  greater  degree  than 


88  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  latter,  are  additions  of  being,  the  removal  of  limits  and  accord- 
ingly an  increasing  representation  of  God  and  a closer  approach  to 
His  Infinite  Being.  This  manifestation  of  the  Godhead  through 
the  ordered  hierarchy  and  pushful  life  of  creatures  has  never  been 
expressed  more  clearly  than  by  Dante  in  the  first  canto  of  the 
Paradiso. 

Le  cose  tutte  e quante 
Hann’ordine  tra  loro  ; e questo  & forma 
Che  l’universo  a Dio  fa  simigliante. 

[All  things  whatsoever  observe  a mutual  order  ; 

And  this  is  the  form  that  maketh  the  universe 
Like  unto  God.] 

We  know  far  more  of  this  order,  its  incalculably  vast  extent  and 
variety,  than  did  Dante  and  his  contemporaries,  and  the  result  of 
this  new  knowledge  should  be  a fuller  realisation  of  the  Divine 
glory  shown  forth  therein. 

Qui  veggi-on  l’alte  creature  l’orma 
Dell’eterno  valore,  il  quale  e fine 
A1  quale  e fatta  la  toccata  norma. 

[Herein  the  exalted  creatures  trace  the  impress 
of  the  Eternal  Worth,  which  is  the  goal  whereto 
was  made  the  norm  now  spoken  of.] 

Not  for  the  consideration  of  man  alone,  with  his  narrow  know- 
ledge, has  the  order  of  the  universe  been  decreed,  but  for  the 
adoring  contemplation  of  the  angelic  intelligences. 

Nell’ordine  ch’io  dico  sono  accline 

Tutte  nature,  per  diverse  sorti 

piu  al  principio  loro  e men  vicine  ; 

onde  si  movono  a diversi  porti 

per  lo  gran  mar  dell’  essere,  e ciascuna 

con  istinto  a lei  dato  che  la  porti.1 

[In  the  order  of  which  I speak  all  things  incline  by 
diverse  lots,  more  near  or  less  unto  their  principle  ; 
wherefore  they  move  to  diverse  ports  o’er  the  great 
sea  of  being,  and  each  one  with  instinct  given  it 
to  bear  it  on.] 


1 That  the  means  of  this  progress  should  be  so  largely  a remorseless  com- 
petition— a struggle  for  existence' — is  part  of  the  mystery  of  evil  unfathomable 
to  the  understanding,  even  when  illuminated  by  faith  and  further  by  mystical 
intuition.  See,  however,  above. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 89 

Upward  ever  upward  to  God,  such  is  the  law  of  created  being 
and  life.  In  the  light  of  modern  knowledge  we  are  able  to  realise 
this  law  more  fully  than  was  possible  to  the  men  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  It  is  ours  to  behold  with  clearer  vision  than  theirs  the 
order  of  created  energy  and  life,  its  striving  and  evolution,  as 
a moving  stairway  ascending  from  story  to  story  of  diversely 
graded  being  till  it  reaches  at  length  the  steps  of  its  Creator’s 
throne. 

2.  A Few  Words  on  Psychology. — The  discussion  of  the  relation- 
ship between  the  human  soul  and  God  must  be  prefaced  by  a 
few  words  as  to  human  psychology.  The  psychology  adopted  by 
St  John  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  adequate  scientific  system — for 
the  time  for  such  a complete  and  wholly  scientific  psychology  had 
not  yet  arrived.  Indeed,  such  a psychology  is  still  in  its  infancy. 
The  scholastic  psychology  employed  by  St  John  seems  to  me  to  be 
rather  a description  of  the  general  features  of  human  life  and  con- 
sciousness, expressed  in  clear  and  definite  formulas.  As  such  it 
can  no  more  be  overthrown  by  the  fuller  and  more  scientific 
psychology  of  the  future  than  the  obvious  facts  of  our  physical 
constitution,  as  known  by  simple  observation  and  common-sense, 
can  be  discredited  by  the  more  radical  explanations  of  medical 
science.  All  the  psychologies  other  than  the  scholastic,  hitherto 
adopted,  have  been  defective  in  every  sense— even  as  descriptive, 
because  they  have  tried  to  explain  man’s  psychical  life  by  the 
denial  of  some  essential  factor  or  element.  Since  the  scholastic 
psychology  is  thus  fundamentally  sound  in  its  acceptance  of  all 
the  known  facts  or  aspects  of  our  psychical  experience,  I will 
adhere  to  its  principles  in  this  work.  Such  adherence,  however, 
will  not  commit  me  to  the  adoption  either  of  its  details  or  of  its 
exact  terminology.  Wherever  I feel  that  I can  bring  home  my 
meaning  more  forcibly  to  the  modern  reader  by  the  use  of  terms 
unknown  to  or  otherwise  employed  by  the  schoolmen,  I shall  not 
hesitate  to  do  so.  Moreover,  I accept  in  substance  the  modern 
psychology  of  the  subconscious. 

The  human  soul  has  a twofold  function — in  two  diverse  planes. 
It  is  in  the  first  place  the  form  of  the  body — by  which  we  mean 
this,  at  least,  that  the  soul  is  the  principle  of  organic  life  and 
growth  and  of  bodily  sentience.  So  far  as  this  function  is  con- 
cerned it  is  identical  with  the  soul  of  brute  beasts.  But  the 
rational  soul  has  another  function  on  a higher  plane — namely,  the 
spiritual  or  rational  life.  As  such  the  soul  transcends  the  limita- 


90  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

tions  of  physical  existence,  and  attains  to  a knowledge  of  abstract 
or  spiritual  ideas — general  ideas — as  also  to  self-knowledge,  and 
in  the  rational  will  it  transcends  the  necessary  motions  of  sensible 
desire.  This  higher  life  is  divided  by  the  schoolmen  and  by  St 
John  into  three  chief  functions,  called  faculties  or  powers— under- 
standing, memory  and  will.  Modern  psychology,  it  is  true,  dis- 
likes the  term  faculties  as  implying  distinct  entities,  whereas  these 
so-called  “ faculties  ” are  but  different  functions  of  one  activity, 
different  aspects  of  one  entity.  Nevertheless  a certain  distinction 
must  be  admitted.  Thought  is  not  the  same  as  volition,  though  it 
is  the  one  indivisible  soul  that  wills  and  thinks.  Therefore  that 
one  soul  has  in  it  a power  of  willing  and  a power  of  thinking.  To 
these  we  may  surely  apply  the  term  faculty,  without  implying 
entities  substantially  distinct  from  each  other  and  from  the  soul. 
In  this  book  I will  retain  the  old  faculty  terminology  employed  by 
St  John,  understanding  by  a faculty  a distinct  function  of  the  soul. 
I will  therefore  speak  indifferently  of  “ faculty  ” and  “ function.” 
St  John’s  three  faculties  of  understanding,  memory  and  will  may, 
I think,  be  reduced  with  profit  to  two  supreme  faculties,  the  cogni- 
tive and  the  conative  faculties  or  functions.  By  the  cognitive 
function  we  are  conscious  of  general  ideas  and  notions,  as  also  of 
spiritual  beings,  whether  apprehended  by  discursive  reasoning  or 
by  intuition. 

[?.  Throughout  these  chapters  this  cognitive  faculty  or  spiritual 
consciousness  will  often  be  termed  understanding — since  that  is 
the  name  given  to  it  by  St  John  and  the  schools.  Nevertheless 
the  term,  if  understood  strictly,  is  somewhat  misleading.  It 
suggests  discursive  reasoning  and  the  apprehension  of  distinct 
concepts.  The  spiritual  consciousness,  however,  while  inclusive 
of  these  activities,  transcends  them,  both  naturally,  in  a super- 
rational  intuition  of  truths  not  distinctly  grasped  by  discursive 
reason,  and  supernaturally  in  the  intuition  of  God  through  faith 
and  the  crown  of  faith,  the  veiled  intuition  of  the  Divine  presence, 
which  is  a constitutive  element  of  mystical  experience.  Some 
may  object  to  the  use  of  the  term  intuition  as  indicative  of  the  un- 
veiled intuition  of  the  beatific  vision,  and  prefer  to  regard  the 
faith-intuition  of  mysticism  as  an  idea  supernaturally  impressed.1 
This  objection  is,  however,  ill-founded  and  misleading.  It  is  surely 
undeniable  that  the  mystical  consciousness  of  God — independent, 

1 As  in  an  interesting  study  of  mysticism  in  The  Journal  of  Ecclesiastical 
Studies. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 91 

as  it  is,  of  sense  data  and  transcendent  of  the  clear  concepts  of 
reason— is  what  is  generally  understood  by  the  term  intuition. 
Attached  to  the  spiritual  consciousness  is  the  memory  of  the  ideas 
and  beings  of  which  it  is  conscious,  and  a certain  element  of 
spiritual  as  opposed  to  sensible  feeling  ; for  example,  spiritual  joy 
and  sorrow.  The  conative  faculty  or  function  is  the  will,  stretch- 
ing out  to  good,  as  apprehended  by  the  cognitive  function,  together 
with  the  spiritual  emotion,  which  is  attendant  in  greater  or  lesser 
degree  on  the  act  of  will.  Spiritual  feeling,  in  so  far  as  it  is  affec- 
tion, is  subsumed  under  the  conative  or  volitional  element,  as  heat 
under  energy.  Both  functions,  however,  the  cognitive  and  the 
conative,  are  concomitant.  We  cannot  will  without  some  con- 
sciousness of  the  object  willed,  nor  know  without  attention  of  the 
will  to  the  object  known.  These  two  functions  are  aspects  of  one 
indivisible  soul,  as  also  are  the  lower  or  sensible  functions.  All  the 
functions  of  the  soul,  sensible  and  spiritual  alike,  are  united  by 
proceeding  from  one  centre — the  central,  fundamental  ego  or  self. 
In  strict  terminology  the  ego  or  self  is  the  entire  man,  the  complex 
of  soul  and  body.  The  body,  however,  and  the  psychic  functions 
conditioned  by  and  dependent  upon  the  body  are  parts  of  the  ego 
only  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  the  central  selfhood.  Therefore 
I think  it  justifiable  and  tending  to  greater  clarity  to  use  the 
term  ego  of  this  central  selfhood  which  is  the  source  of  the 
individual  unity  of  the  entire  person.1  This  centre,  from  which 
all  the  separate  functions  of  the  soul  proceed  as  rays  from  the  sun, 
is  termed  by  the  mystics  the  centre  of  the  soul,  or  the  ground  of  the 
soul,  or  synderesis.2  Since  this  centre  is  the  least  conditioned  by 
the  limitations  of  sense,  it  is  nearest  to  the  Unlimited  Being  of  God. 
Hence  it  is  the  special  seat  of  the  Divine  Being  and  Action,  in  which 
He  is  most  immanent.  It  is  in  the  centre  that  He  dwells  in  an 
especial  fashion,  because  there  are  fewer  limits  of  non-being  to  bar 
Him  out.  It  is  in  and  from  the  centre  that  He  acts  in  the  soul. 
Of  this  centre  or  synderesis  our  knowledge  is  mainly  indirect. 

1 Here  I must  part  company  with  the  schoolmen  who  regarded  the  body  as 
the  principle  of  individuation.  This  doctrine  makes  it  very  difficult  to  believe  in 
the  individual  survival  of  the  disembodied  spirit. 

2 It  is,  however,  but  fair  to  point  out  that  I depart  from  the  scholastic 
understanding  of  the  synderesis  in  two  points : ( i)  I regard  it  as  normally 
subliminal;  the  scholastic  philosophers  and  theologians  did  not.  (2)  They 
regarded  it  as  identical  with  the  intellectual  faculty  or  function  by  which 
axioms  are  apprehended.  I cannot  admit  this  identity.  (Cf.  Scheeben,  Dogmatik, 
Fr.  trs.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  13.) 


92  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

The  inmost  ego  is  normally  known  only  in  and  through  its 
functions.  All  our  psychical  functions  are  largely  subconscious, 
as  modern  psychology  has  clearly  demonstrated.  Mainly  sub- 
conscious are  the  deeper,  more  fundamental  and  more  purely 
spiritual  energies  of  the  cognitive  and  conative  faculties — namely, 
intuition  and  radical  will.  As  intuition  underlies  the  conscious 
cognition  of  discursive  reason,  so  the  radical  will  is  the  fundamental 
disposition  of  the  will,  the  orientation  of  the  entire  self,  which 
underlies  particular  volitions  which  are  not  thus  completely 
expressive  of  the  soul.  At  comparatively  rare  intervals  this 
fundamental  will  emerges  in  a conscious  decision,  as  also  the  sub- 
conscious intuition  becomes  on  occasion  a conscious  perception. 
Most  fully  subconscious,  however,  is  the  centre  or  ground  from 
which  these  cognitive  and  conative  functions  proceed.  Hence 
the  conscious  manifestation  of  the  Divine  Being  and  Activity  in 
the  soul  involves  as  its  concomitant— its  “ epiphenomenon,”  the 
entrance  into  consciousness  of  depths  and  functions  normally 
subconscious- — an  uprush  from  the  subliminal,  as  modern  psy- 
chologists term  it.  Therefore  the  subject  of  mystical  experience 
is  that  portion  of  the  soul  which  is  normally  subliminal,  though  by 
no  means  always  entirely  subconscious,  even  in  man’s  normal  and 
purely  natural  life.  We  must,  however,  remember  that  the 
opposite  pole  of  the  psychical  life,  the  most  extremely  superficial 
functions— those,  namely,  that  pertain  to  the  vegetive  life  of  the 
body- — are  also  normally  subconscious  or  subliminal.  There  is,  as 
Miss  Evelyn  Underhill  aptly  remarks  ( Mysticism , chap,  iii),  no 
special  faculty  or  function  of  subconsciousness,  no  distinct  entity, 
such  as  the  “ subjective  mind  ” of  Hudson.  It  follows  that  when 
we  term  a state  of  consciousness  an  uprush  from  the  subliminal  we 
really  mean  only  that  it  is  the  consciousness  of  functions,  faculties 
or  energies,  whether  superficial,  medial  or  central,  of  which  we 
are  normally  unconscious,  whether  or  not  there  is  also  the  con- 
sciousness of  a transubjective  reality  apprehended  by  or  active  in 
the  “ emergent  ” functions.  Moreover,  the  assertion  does  not  tell 
us  what  functions  they  are  of  which  the  soul  has  thus  become 
conscious.  Hence  “ subliminal  uprush  ” is  an  exceedingly 
inadequate  explanation  of  any  psychological  phenomenon. 
Certainly  there  is  a subliminal  uprush  in  mystical  experience — 
since  this  involves  a consciousness  of  the  central  depths  through 
which  the  Divine  Being  and  Action  are  manifested.  But  there  is 
also  a subliminal  uprush  from  the  opposite  pole  in  an  attack  of 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 93 

indigestion.  We  have  already  discussed  the  modern  error  which 
identifies  the  Divine  Being  and  Action  manifested  in  and  through 
the  central  depths  that  are  normally  subliminal — with  a simple 
consciousness  of  those  normally  subliminal  depths  and  their 
natural  content — the  error  which  regards  mystical  experience  as 
simply  subjective.  I need  not,  therefore,  say  more  here  on  this 
point.  There  is,  then,  in  the  soul  a normally  subconscious  central 
ego,  and  proceeding  from  this  central  ego  a fundamental,  spiritual 
consciousness  or  cognitive  faculty,  which,  as  it  comes  to  the  surface 
of  consciousness,  produces  the  increasingly  limited  and  increas- 
ingly sense-conditioned  forms  of  consciousness  and  a funda- 
mental, spiritual  will  or  conative  faculty,  which,  as  it  comes  to  the 
surface  in  like  manner,  produces  the  increasingly  limited  and  the 
increasingly  sense-conditioned  forms  of  volition  and  desire.  Con- 
comitant with  these  faculties,  especially  with  the  conation,  is  a 
spiritual  feeling  which,  when  it  accompanies  more  limited,  more 
superficial  and  more  sensible  forms  of  consciousness  and  volition, 
becomes  the  sensible  feeling  that  is  so  narrowly  limited  and  so 
transitory.  Thus  there  is,  in  the  centre  of  the  soul,  as  Ruysbroeck 
points  out  ( Mirror  of  Eternal  Salvation,  chap,  ix),  an  image  of 
the  most  Holy  Trinity.  For  him,  as  for  many  mystics  and  fathers, 
from  St  Augustine  downwards,  this  created  trinity  of  the  human 
soul  consists  of  memory,  understanding  and  will.  Without  in 
any  way  desiring  to  reject  or  belittle  this  venerable  image,  I find 
myself  better  aided  by  a modified  form  of  it,  since  the  memory 
does  not  seem  to  me  so  fundamentally  distinct  a function  or 
faculty  as  are  the  understanding  and  the  will.  The  created  trinity 
in  the  central  soul  consists,  in  my  view,  of  the  central  ego — the 
ground  of  the  soul,  the  synderesis  and  the  cognitive  and  the  cona- 
tive faculties — the  understanding  and  the  will.  The  synderesis  or 
the  ground  of  the  soul  is  an  image  of  the  Father,  for  from  it  pro- 
ceed the  two  fundamental  properties  or  functions  of  the  soul, 
cognition  or  understanding  and  conation  or  will.  The  under- 
standing is  an  image  of  the  Son,  the  Eternal  Wisdom,  the  will 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Eternal  Love.  The  procession  of  both 
from  the  ground  is  an  image  of  the  procession  of  the  Divine 
Persons. 

Now  it  is  clear,  I think,  that  a man’s  will  is  the  most  funda- 
mental expression  of  himself.  This  primacy  of  will  in  the  psychical 
life,  the  fact  that  conative  activity  is  the  most  fundamental  of  all 
our  psychical  activities,  has  been  greatly  stressed  by  modem 


94  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

psychologists.  Wundt,  for  example,  regards  “ will  as  the  central 
point  of  the  psychical  life  ” (Hoffding,  Modern  Philosophers,  trs. 
Mason,  p.  6).  According  to  Professor  Hoffding  “ there  is  an  element 
of  will  in  all  psychic  states  ” ( Modern  Philosophers,  p.  282).  He,  of 
course,  understands  by  will  every  kind  of  purposive  or  conative 
activity.  But  of  these  conations,  will,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the 
term,  especially  the  decision  and  orientation  of  the  radical  will,  is 
the  highest,  most  interior  and  most  spiritual  form.  Therefore  in 
all  the  highest,  most  interior  and  most  spiritual  activities  of  the 
soul,  which  are  those  with  which  mystical  theology  is  concerned, 
there  is  doubtless  present  an  element  of  will  in  the  strictest  sense. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  of  all  our  psychical  functions  or  faculties 
the  will  penetrates  farthest  into,  and  is  most  deeply  rooted  in,  the 
central  ego  ; or,  if  you  prefer  a less  metaphorical  expression,  that 
will  is  the  most  fundamental  and  most  representative  aspect  of  the 
ego.  M.  Bergson  supports  this  psychology  when  he  teaches  that 
it  is  “ in  an  energetic  decision  of  the  will  that  ‘ the  basal  ego  finds 
self  expression,’  and  that  in  such  volition  the  ego  of  the  depths 
rises  to  the  surface  and  asserts  itself  ” (Hoffding,  Modern  Phil- 
osophers, p.  282).  That  is  the  reason  that  certain  mystics  term 
the  centre  the  apex  of  the  will. 

All  our  knowledge  in  this  life — that  is  to  say,  all  our  natural 
knowledge— is  conditioned  by  the  images  received  from  sense. 
Not  natural  but  supernatural  is  the  intuition  or  realisation  of  God 
as  present  in  and  intimately  united  with  the  apex,  which  is  given 
in  mystical  experiencefc  But  although  all  our  other  knowledge  is 
thus  sense-conditioned,  it  is  not  so  conditioned  to  an  equal  degree. 
We  can,  even  in  the  natural  order,  live  an  interior  life,  spiritualis- 
ing our  knowledge  by  the  contemplation  of  spiritual  ideas,  whence 
the  particular  images  of  sense  are  abstracted  as  far  as  may  be  and 
bringing  into  play  our  most  interior  and  self-expressing  faculties 
both  cognitive  and  conative. 

These  preliminary  remarks  will,  I hope,  be  sufficient  to  outline 
the  psychology  of  the  human  soul  as  the  subject  of  mystical 
experience.  Further  light  and  more  detailed  information  will  be 
supplied  by  our  consideration  of  the  mystical  way  itself — which  is, 
from  first  to  last,  dependent  upon  and  conditioned  by  the  essential 
nature  of  the  soul  and  on  its  consequent  relationship  to  God. 
Nothing  is  laid  down  by  St  John  of  the  Cross  which  is  not  logically 
consequent  on  his  doctrine  of  God  and  the  soul,  and  the  under- 
standing of  the  mystical  way  will  therefore  throw  the  clearest  light 


INTRODUCTION  TO  CHAPTER  V 95 

on  its  Object  and  subject  in  their  mutual  relationship — or,  to  speak 
more  accurately,  on  the  relationship  of  the  latter  to  the  Former. 
The  Being  of  God  is  the  fixed  and  changeless,  because  Absolute, 
Reality,  immanent  in  yet  transcendent  of  the  soul,  with  Whom  the 
soul  of  man  is  in  relation,  and  towards  Whom  that  soul  progresses 
in  the  mystical  way. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD 

THE  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  MYSTICAL  WAY 

Jacob  being  departed  from  Bersabee  went  towards  Haran.  And 
when  he  would  rest  after  sunset  he  took  of  the  stones,  and  putting 
them  under  his  head  he  slept.  And  he  saw  in  his  sleep  a ladder 
standing  upon  the  earth,  and  the  top  thereof  touching  heaven,  the 
angels  also  of  God  ascending  and  descending  by  it : and  the  Lord 
leaning  upon  the  ladder,  saying  unto  him : “ I am  the  Lord 
God.”  And  when  Jacob  awaked  out  of  sleep,  he  said:  '''‘Indeed 
the  Lord  is  in  this  place  and  I knew  it  not.  How  terrible  is 
this  place ! This  is  no  other  but  the  house  of  God  and  the  gate 
of  heaven Genesis  xxviii. 

O world  invisible — -we  view  thee, 

0 world  intangible — we  touch  thee, 

O world  unknowable — we  know  thee, 

Inapprehensible — we  clutch  thee. 

The  angels  keep  their  ancient  places  : 

Turn  but  a stone,  and  start  a wing  ! 

’Tis  ye,  His  your  estranged  faces 
That  miss  the  many  splendoured  thing. 

But  ( when  so  sad  thou  canst  not  sadder) 

Cry  ! — and  upon  thy  so  sore  loss 
Shall  shine  the  traffic  of  Jacob's  ladder 
Pitched  between  heaven  and  Charing  Cross. 

Francis  Thompson. 

“ There  are  different  roads  by  which  this  end  ( apprehension  of  the 
Infinite)  may  be  reached.  The  love  of  beauty,  which  exalts  the  poet  ; 
that  devotion  to  the  One,  and  that  ascent  of  Science  which  makes  the 
ambition  of  the  philosopher ; and  that  love  and  those  prayers  by 
which  some  devout  and  ardent  soul  tends  in  its  moral  purity  to- 
wards perfection.  These  are  the  great  highways  conducting  to  that 

96 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  97 

height  above  the  actual  and  the  particular,  where  we  stand  in  the 
immediate  presence  of  the  Infinite,  who  shines  out  as  from  the 
deeps  of  the  soul.’’'’ 

Plotinus, 

Letter  to  Flaccus.  Quoted  by  Miss  Spurgeon, 
Mysticism  in  English  Literature,  p.  33. 

Man’s  relation  to  God  differs  fundamentally  from  that  of  infra- 
rational  creatures.  He  is  no  longer  the  blind  slave  of  the  life 
impulse,  or  of  instinct,  though  these  play  a far  greater  part  in  his 
life  than  psychology  has,  until  lately,  been  prepared  to  admit. 
His  soul  is  not  merely  the  principle  of  his  animal  life,  but  a rational 
spirit.  As  such  the  human  soul  is  not  bound  by  the  limits  of  the 
particular  object,  but  is  capable  of  generalisation.  Man  can, 
moreover,  criticise  his  own  impulses  and  desires  and  frame  his  own 
ends,  rationally  chosen,  his  free  will  being  thus  grounded  in  his 
rationality.  Furthermore,  his  reason  makes  known  to  him  the 
inadequacy  of  any  finite  object.  His  reason  cannot,  indeed,  form 
any  concept  of  the  infinite — being  essentially  finite.  It  can  only 
lead  him  to  a negative  knowledge  of  the  infinite,  as  that  which  lacks 
the  limitations  inherent  in  every  finite  image  and  concept.  To 
this  good,  however,  he  can  reach  out  by  his  will.  For  the  object 
of  the  will  is  good,  and  since  reason  apprehends  the  inadequacy  of 
finite  goods,  the  will  cannot  ultimately  rest  in  such,  but  stretches 
out  to  infinite  good.  This  infinite  good  is  God,  conceived 
in  the  negative-positive  manner  discussed  in  the  preceding- 
chapters.  Therefore  in  this  life  the  will  is  the  supreme  means  of 
union  between  the  human  soul  and  God.  The  author  of  The 
Obscure  Knowledge  states  this  very  clearly.  “ It  is  most  certain,” 
he  says,  “ that  in  this  life  the  union  of  the  will  is  far  more  ex- 
cellent and  of  higher  worth  than  the  union  of  the  understanding, 
and  it  is  better  to  love  God  than  to  know  Him,  because  that  which 
we  can  love  with  the  will  is  much  more  than  that  which  we  can 
attain  with  the  understanding.  The  reason  of  this  may  be 
gathered  from  a consideration  of  the  respective  modes  of  opera- 
tion of  the  understanding  and  the  will.  They  are  completely 
different.  When  the  understanding  understands,  it  attracts  to 
itself  the  object  understood  and  forms  an  idea  of  it  within  itself, 
which  idea  it  contains  within  itself.  Since  its  capacity  is  finite,  it 
reduces  within  its  own  limitations  the  object  understood,  even  if 
in  itself  that  object  be  infinite,  even  as  the  ocean  is  reduced  and 
narrowed  when  it  enters  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar.  The  will,  on  the 
o 


98  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

contrary,  when  it  loves  goes  out  of  itself  and  is  transformed  into 
the  object  loved  and  is  made  one  thing  with  it.  The  object  loved 
is  not  therefore  limited  by  it.  From  this  we  can  see  how  different 
is  our  understanding  of  God  in  this  life  from  our  love  of  Him.  We 
understand  Him  according  to  our  own  capacity ; we  love  Him 
as  He  is  in  Himself  ” ( Obscure  Knowledge,  chap.  x).  Similar  is 
the  teaching  of  Mother  Cecilia.  “ From  the  limitation  inherent 
in  everything  external  there  is,”  she  writes,  “ no  escape,  unless 
the  Divine  communication  find  an  abiding  place  in  the  heart,  by 
which  is  meant  the  intimate  part  of  the  will  or  the  essence  of  the 
soul.  Since  this  was  created  by  God  after  His  own  image  and 
likeness,  it  possesses  an  immensity  so  profound  that  it  is  like  a 
bottomless  well,  or  rather  an  ocean  in  the  which  the  deeper  the  soul 
sinks  the  farther  is  she  from  touching  bottom,  for  she  has  a life 
grounded  in  the  very  life  and  essence  of  her  Creator.  . . . The 
will  alone  is  permitted  to  love  the  soul’s  lord  with  a certain 
infinity  in  its  love,  due  to  the  infinity  of  the  object  of  its  love, 
in  Whom  it  loses  itself  completely”  ( Transformation , st.  1). 
“ Love  gives  the  soul  . . . more  of  God  than  any  other  means  ” 
( Transformation , st.  11). 

If  man  lived  wholly  or  chiefly  by  reason,  he  would  reach  out 
to  this  supreme  good.  I do  not  mean  that  he  would  attain  to  the 
beatific  vision  of  God,  or  even  to  mystical  union  with  Him,  for 
that  is  essentially  beyond  the  capacity  of  unaided  nature,  but  he 
would  have  a certain  will  union  with  God — a union  such  as  we 
may  suppose  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  souls  of  unbaptized  infants. 
It  is  certain  that  man  has  no  real  satisfaction  short  of  the  attain- 
ment of  infinite  good.  All  lower  satisfaction  is  merely  seeming. 
Along  every  line  of  human  activity  there  is  this  striving  after  the 
infinite— an  ascent  from  the  more  to  the  less  limited.  Such  is  the 
way  of  knowledge,  rising  from  a merely  practical  colligation  and 
generalisation  of  the  sense-presented  facts  of  everyday  life,  to  the 
apprehension  of  scientific  laws  and  metaphysical  principles.  It  is 
the  same  with  the  way  of  love — never  to  be  satisfied  with  any 
limited  object.  Hence  the  cry  of  the  mighty  lover,  St  Augustine  : 
“ Thou  madest  us  for  Thyself,  and  our  heart  is  restless  until  it 
repose  in  Thee.”  1 The  infinite  good  that  is  God  is  indeed  the  sole 
true  happiness,  and  therefore  the  sole  end  of  the  human  heart. 

But  we  have  already  seen  that  God  is  not  only  the  trans- 
cendent goal  of  creatures  but  is  also  immanent  in  the  human 

1 Confessions,  I.  i.  Trs.  Pusey. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  99 

soul,  as  the  ultimate  ground  of  the  psychic  life  of  man.  As  this  life, 
being  spiritual,  is  immeasureably  higher  than  infrarational  being 
and  life,  it  is,  to  use  a spatial  metaphor,  more  deeply  grounded 
and  rooted  in  the  Divine  Being  because  more  fully  participant 
of  that  Being.  Most  deeply  grounded  in  the  Godhead,  since 
it  is  most  fully  possessed  and  most  fully  representative  of  God, 
is  the  higher  or  spiritual  life  of  the  human  soul,  especially  its  root, 
the  synderesis  or  centre.  For  that  central  life  is  freest  of  limits, 
and  in  it  therefore  the  Unlimited  is  peculiarly  pi’esent.  Thus 
God  dwells  especially  in  the  centre  of  the  soul.  Moreover,  the 
powers  of  the  soul  aie  its  instruments  for  dealing  with  creatures 
and  with  the  images  and  concepts  derived  therefrom.  Hence  the 
powers — and  the  more  so  in  proportion  to  their  distance  from 
the  centre — that  is,  the  more  sensible  and  superficial  they  are- 
are  farther  removed  from  God  than  the  centre  and  the  highest 
powers  that  are  most  intimately  rooted  in  it.  Moreover  we  have 
seen  that  the  will  reaches  deepest  into  this  central  ground.  There- 
fore the  will  is  for  this  reason  also  the  chief  means  to  union  with 
God  within  the  centre.  Just  now  we  saw  that  this  was  the  case, 
because  the  will  most  completely  transcended  the  particular  in 
its  outgoing  search  of  unlimited  good.  But  it  is  also  true  because 
the  will  reaches  innermost  into  the  central  life,  away  and  free  from 
the  superficial  life  that  is  conditioned  and  limited,  immediately  or 
mediately  by  sense  images.  This  is,  of  course,  the  same  fact 
regarded  from  different  points  of  view,  the  same  reality  under 
two  aspects.  I will  now  quote  the  words  of  St  John  and  his 
school  on  the  presence  of  God  in  the  centre  of  the  soul.  “ We 
must  remember,”  he  says,  in  the  Spiritual  Canticle , “ that  the 
Word,  the  Son  of  God,  together  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  hidden  in  essence  and  in  presence,  in  the  inmost  being 
of  the  soul.  That  soul  therefore  that  will  find  Him,  must  go  out 
from  all  things  in  will  and  affection  and  enter  into  the  profoundest 
self-recollection.  . . Hence  St  Augustine  saith  : “ I found 
Thee  not  without,  O Lord  ; I sought  Thee  without  in  vain,  for 
Thou  art  within.”  (God  is  indeed  immanent  in  external  creatures 
— but  as  their  being  is  less  representative  of  His — participating 
less  fully  in  His  Being  on  account  of  their  greater  limitation — 
He  is  not  so  fully  present  in  them  as  in  the  human  soul  that  is 
capable  of  apprehending  and  willing  an  Infinite  Good,  and  is  as 
such  made  in  His  own  image  and  likeness.)  “ God  is  therefore 
hidden  within  the  soul,  and  the  true  contemplative  will  seek  Him 


100  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

there  in  love.”  . . . “ O thou  soul  . . . thou  knowest  now  that 
thou  art  thyself  that  very  tabernacle  where  He  dwells,  the  secret 
chamber  of  His  retreat  where  He  is  hidden.  Rejoice,  therefore, 
and  exult,  because  all  thy  good  and  all  thy  hope  is  so  near  thee 
as  to  be  within  thee,  or  to  speak  more  accurately  that  thou  canst 
not  be  without  it,  ‘ for,  lo,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.’  . . . 
What  more  canst  thou  desire,  what  more  canst  thou  seek  without, 
seeing  that  within  thou  hasf  thy  riches,  thy  delights,  thy  satis- 
faction, thy  fulness  and  thy  kingdom  ; that  is,  thy  Beloved, 
Whom  thou  desirest  and  seekest  ? Rejoice,  then,  and  be  glad 
in  thy  interior  recollection  with  Him,  seeing  that  thou  hast  Him 
so  near.  There  love  Him,  there  desire  Him,  there  adore  Him, 
and  go  not  to  seek  Him  out  of  thyself,  for  that  will  be  but  dis- 
traction and  weariness,  and  thou  shalt  not  find  Him,  because 
there  is  no  fruition  of  Him  more  certain,  more  ready,  or  more 
nigh  than  that  which  is  within  ” ( Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  1). 
“We  must  remember  that  in  every  soul  God  dwells  secretly  and 
veiled  in  their  substance,  for  were  it  otherwise  they  could  not 
endure  in  existence.  There  is,  however,  a difference  as  regards 
this  inhabitation  between  one  soul  and  another,  and  a great 
difference  it  is.  In  some  souls  He  dwells  alone,  in  others  not  alone, 
in  some  pleased,  in  others  displeased,  in  some  as  in  His  house, 
commanding  and  directing  everything,  and  in  others  as  a stranger 
in  a house  not  His  own,  where  He  is  not  permitted  to  order  or  to 
do  anything  ” ( Living  Flame  of  Love,  st.  4).  “ By  saying 

that  the  flame  of  love  [i.e.  God’s  infused  love]  strikes  the  deepest 
centre  of  the  soul,  it  is  implied  that  there  are  other  centres  in  the 
soul  not  so  deep.  I must  explain  how  this  is  so.  We  must 
realise,  first  of  all,  that  the  soul,  being  a spirit,  has  in  its  being 
neither  height  nor  depth,  neither  a deeper  nor  a less  deep  portion, 
as  have  bodies  that  are  possessed  of  quantity.  Moreover,  since 
it  has  no  parts,  there  is  no  distinction  of  outer  and  inner,  but  the 
entire  soul  is  uniform.  Neither  has  the  soul  a centre  more  or 
less  profound  in  a quantitative  sense.  It  cannot  be  more 
illuminated  in  one  part  than  in  another,  as  are  physical  bodies, 
but  uniformly  in  whatever  degree  of  illumination  it  may  possess, 
even  as  the  air  is  uniformly  illuminated  whether  in  greater  or 
lesser  degree.  In  the  case  of  material  objects  we  term  that  their 
deepest  centre  which  is  the  farthest  to  which  their  being  and 
virtue  and  the  force  of  their  activity  and  motion  extend,  the 
point  beyond  which  they  cannot  pass,  nor  can  they  be  kept  away 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  101 

from  thence  save  by  some  obstacle  which  forcibly  impedes  them. 
We  say,  for  example,  of  a stone  when  it  is  inside  the  earth,  although 
not  in  the  greatest  depth  thereof,  that  it  is  in  some  sense  in  its 
centre,  because  it  is  in  the  sphere  of  its  centre,  activity  and  motion. 
We  do  not,  however,  say  that  it  is  in  its  deepest  centre,  for  that 
is  the  mid-point  of  the  earth.  That  stone,  therefore,  still  possesses 
virtue,  force  and  inclination  to  descend  until  it  reaches  this 
ultimate  and  deepest  centre,  if  only  the  obstacle  be  removed. 
When  the  stone  reaches  that  centre,  and  no  longer  possesses  in 
itself  the  capacity  or  inclination  for  further  movement,  we  say 
that  it  is  in  its  deepest  centre. 

“ The  centre  of  the  soul  is  God.  When  the  soul  shall  have 
attained  to  God  to  the  utmost  of  its  capacity  it  will  have  attained 
its  ultimate  and  deepest  centre  in  Him,  which  will  be  when  it 
understands,  loves  and  tastes  God  with  all  its  powers  ” ( Living 
Flame  of  Love,  st.  1).  We  note,  indeed,  in  this  passage  a 
change  of  idea — God  being  now  regarded  as  the  centre  of  the  soul. 
The  reason  is  that  the  centre  or  ground  of  the  soul  is  itself  grounded 
in  Him,  and  that  in  the  most  intimate  manner.  It  is  therefore 
easy  to  pass  from  one  concept  to  the  other.  In  fact  certain 
unorthodox  mystics — e.g.  Eckhardt — have  actually  confused 
the  created  centre  or  ground  where  God  dwells,  and  where  we  find 
Him  in  mystical  experience,  with  God  Himself.  The  existence  of 
this  confusion  should  make  us  realise  how  intimately  the  centre 
of  the  soul,  the  very  ego,  is  grounded  in  the  Divine  Being,  though, 
of  course,  as  a creature,  infinitely  distant  from  Him.  I have 
already  warned  the  reader  against  an  exclusive  understanding  of 
the  statements  of  the  mystics,  and  our  subsequent  consideration 
of  the  transcendence  of  God  has  explained  and  stressed  that 
warning.  The  mystic  feels  so  intensely  and  so  intimately  the 
presence  of  God  in  the  centre  of  his  soul  as  the  very  ground 
of  his  selfhood  that  he  is  driven  to  use  language  which  might 
suggest  to  the  unwary  the  notion  that  the  centre  is  itself 
divine.  The  Spanish  mystics,  however,  are  more  careful  to 
guard  against  such  misunderstanding  than  were  the  German 
and  Flemish  mystics  before  them.  Perhaps  the  clearest  state- 
ment of  the  Divine  immanence  in  the  centre,  or  ground,  of 
the  soul,  is  the  following  passage  from  Mother  Cecilia,  in  her 
comment  on  the  lines  : 

She  (the  soul)  ascendeth  to  the  empyrean  heaven 

And  lifteth  the  veil  from  her  secret  centre. 


102  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

“ We  are  to  understand,”  she  says,  “ by  these  words  the  force 
wheiewith  the  soul  is  raised  above  all  her  faculties  superior  and 
inferior  to  her  centre,  which  is  meant  by  the  empyrean  heaven, 
where  God  dwells  within  her  and  where  she  has  the  fruition  of  Him 
as  if  in  heaven.  Hence  some  have  termed  the  centre  the  heaven 
of  the  spirit.  . . . Only  he  who  has  had  the  experience  can  believe 
the  immensity  of  blessings  that  are  revealed  or  hidden  in  this 
Divine  heaven.  He  who  knows  only  the  grossness  of  man’s 
exterior  will  never  be  able  to  understand  that  within  the  soul 
hidden  beneath  this  shabby  veil  of  mortal  flesh  there  is  contained 
an  immense  centre  of  boundless  riches  and  glory.  The  senses 
cannot  perceive  nor  the  human  intellect  understand,  nor  can  our 
reason  judge  how  God  dwells  there.  . . . This  most  profound  and 
most  sacred  depth  of  the  soul  is  the  dwelling-place  of  God.  In 
this  Divine  centre  we  are  made  in  His  likeness.  Nothing  can  fill 
or  satisfy  this  centre  save  God  Himself.  Until  the  soul  loses 
herself  in  the  immensity  of  God,  she  does  not  know  or  understand 
the  wealth  that  she  possesses  within  herself,  nor  does  she  obtain 
even  an  inkling  of  what  this  Divine  centre  really  is  in  its  substance 
and  true  nature.  Verily,  no  living  man  exists,  or  has  existed, 
who  has  comprehended  the  nature  of  this  centre.”  . . . “ The 
words  ‘ And  lifteth  the  veil  from  her  secret  centre  ’ are  intended 
to  make  us  realise  how  different  is  the  state  of  such  a soul  from 
the  condition  of  those  who  have  not  attained  to  the  revelation 
of  this  centre.  From  these  latter  this  centre  is  hidden  by  a veil  so 
thick  and  dark  that  it  not  only  hides  the  centre  itself,  but  even  the 
knowledge  that  they  possess  within  themselves  that  hidden  place. 
...  If  however  a soul  empties  and  purifies  herself,  she  will  be 
able  to  discover  her  centre  and  to  plunge  in  the  Divine  immensity 
the  emptiness  of  her  very  essence  which  none  can  fill  or  satisfy 
save  God  Himself.  I am  . . . treating  here,  of  those  who  have 
wholly  plunged  themselves  into  their  God  and  have  discovered 
this  immense  place  which  they  possess  in  themselves  and  in  Him 
and  have  attained  the  riches  aforesaid,  and  the  other  ineffable 
immensities.  . . . They  have  discovered  this  empyrean  heaven 
which  is  their  most  profound  centre,  whereon  God  fully  smote  and 
from  which  He  has  removed  the  dark  veil  of  all  that  hindered  this 
Divine  communication  ” ( Transformation  of  the  Soul  in  God, 
st.  4). 

Cardinal  Newman,  who  realised  so  intensely  the  immanence  of 
God  in  the  centre  of  the  soul  as  to  term  God  “ the  true  self,  that 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  103 

better  part  of  our  being,  of  whom  our  very  self  is  but  the  im- 
personal instrument  and  the  servant,”  and  who  bade  his  hearers 
regard  God  “ as  enthroned  within  us  at  the  very  springs  of  thought 
and  affection,”  termed  this  centre  conscience.  I cannot  but  feel 
this  to  be  a misnomer.  Conscience  is  surely  but  the  discursive 
reason  as  perceptive  of  ethical  truth.  The  possession  of  this 
perception  is  indeed  a strong  argument  for  the  existence  of  God — 
but  it  is  not  therefore  to  be  identified  either  with  the  intuitive 
perception  of  God  or  with  the  central  ego.  Both  of  these  are 
deeper  and  wider  than  the  ethical  judgment.  We  cannot  regard 
ethical  perception  as  the  sole  or  even  as  the  supreme  avenue  of 
communication  between  the  soul  and  God  Who  is  revealed  to  us 
alike  in  His  historical  revelation  and  in  our  personal  experience 
not  only  as  Absolute  Goodness  but  also  as  Absolute  Beauty  and 
Truth.  It  is  indeed  true  that  our  closest  union  with  God  is 
effected  through  love,  and  that  love  is  an  ethical  activity.  The 
love  of  God,  however,  is  far  more  than  a morally  good  will.  Still 
less  is  it  identical  with  ethical  perception  which  pertains  to  reason 
not  to  will. 

God  is  therefore  the  end  and  goal  of  the  human  spirit,  and 
He  is  immanent  in  the  centre  of  that  spirit  as  the  ground  of  its 
being.  Why  then  is  man  not  in  closer  and  more  actual  union 
with  Him  ? Why  are  we  not  normally  conscious  of  God’s  Presence 
within  our  souls  ? On  account,  it  may  be  replied,  of  the  limitations 
of  human  nature.  There  is  much  truth  in  this  answer,  but  it  is 
inadequate.  The  only  answer  that  is  fully  adequate  is  that  given 
by  the  Catholic  Church.  That  answer  is  simple— it  is  contained 
in  one  word  : sin.  Original  sin,  actual  sin  and  their  consequences  : 
these  and  these  alone  separate  the  human  sold  from  God.  I will 
first  discuss  the  theory  of  this  separation  and  will  then  point  out 
how  it  is  realised  in  actual  life.  Original  sin  consists  in  the  loss 
of  a supernatural  elevation  of  the  soul  (the  state  of  original  justice) 
whereby  the  essential  limitation  of  created  being  was  so  removed 
by  a supernatural  being  and  life  infused  by  God  1 and  named  by 
theology  habitual  or  sanctifying  grace  that  the  soul  was  capable 
of  a superhuman  union  with  Unlimited  Godhead,  in  emancipation 
from  the  creaturely  limits  that  naturally  exclude  such  union. 
When  through  Christ  we  are  restored  in  baptism  to  the  super- 
natural order  of  sanctifying  grace,  the  potentiality  together  with  a 
radical  actualisation  of  this  superhuman  union  with  God  is  once 

1 Strictly  speaking,  a quality  or  habit. 


104  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

more  ours  and  continues  ours  until  we  wilfully  lose  it  by  grave 
actual  sin.  Actual  sin  is  a deliberate  turning  of  the  will  from 
God  to  creatures— aversion  from  God,  conversion  to  creatures. 
When  this  aversion  is  complete,  the  sin  is  mortal,  when  partial, 
it  is  venial.  Every  sinful  act  is  then  the  deliberate  preference  of 
some  finite  good  to  the  infinite  good.  By  this  preference  we  erect 
that  finite  good  into  a barrier  whose  finitude  shuts  out  from  us 
the  infinite  good.  It  is  not  that  God  can  ever  cease  to  be  actually 
present  in  the  soid — but  that  the  wrong  will  averts  the  soul  from 
Him,  cuts  it  off  from  will-union  with  Him.  If  through  a truly 
invincible  ignorance  a man  does  not  know  God,  he  will  be  guilty 
of  sin  or  imperfection  whenever  he  deliberately  prefers  in  his 
ethical  choices  the  more  limited  to  the  less  limited  good.  But 
it  may  be  urged  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  knowingly  to 
prefer  a lesser  to  a greater  good,  much  less  a finite  to  an  infinite 
good  ; and  that  therefore  sin  is  nothing  but  ignorance,  as  Plato 
maintained.  Certainly  there  is  an  element  of  ignorance  in  all  sin. 
It  is  true  that  nobody  can  choose  a lesser  good  to  a greater  with 
attention  fixed  on  this  fact.  He  can,  however,  shut  his  eyes  to 
the  difference  of  value,  because  the  lesser  good  is  more  pleasant 
for  the  moment.  Furthermore,  there  is  in  fallen  man  a rooted 
tendency  to  prefer  his  immediate  but  limited  pleasure  as  a separ- 
ate individual  to  the  universal  or  absolute  good  with  which, 
or  rather  with  Whom,  he  ought  in  reason  to  identify  his  own  good. 
This  tendency  shows  us  that  actual  sin  arises  out  of  an  infirm, 
indeed  a depraved  condition  of  human  nature— the  result,  so 
the  faith  teaches  us,  of  the  fall,  that  is  of  original  sin,  and  its  con- 
sequences, still  abiding  even  in  the  regenerate.  This  depravity 
may  be  reduced  under  two  heads.  There  is,  first,  the  rebellion 
of  the  lower  and  sensual  desires  against  the  spirit — the  law  of  the 
flesh  fighting  against  the  law  of  the  mind.  “ The  flesh  lusteth 
against  the  spirit.”  The  soul  is,  as  we  saw,  the  principle  of 
physical  life  and  of  bodily  desires.  These  lower  functions  of  the 
soul  are  in  fallen  man  at  variance  with  the  higher,  and  are  ever 
dragging  him  downwards  and  imprisoning  him  within  the  limits 
of  the  unspiritual,  narrowly  limited  and  therefore  comparatively 
unreal  creatures  and  their  images,  which  are  the  proper  objects 
of  sensible  life  and  desires.  There  is,  however,  a yet  deeper 
deordination  in  the  higher  soul  itself,  the  above-mentioned  ten- 
dency to  isolate  the  self  from  the  Absolute  and  Universal  good. 
This  more  spiritual  deordination  leads  man  to  place  his  happiness 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  105 

in  creatures  of  a more  spiritual  and  therefore  less  limited  char- 
acter than  the  objects  of  the  sensible  desires  though  still  wholly 
finite — for  example,  the  gratification  of  intellectual  or  spiritual 
pride  or  ambition.  Both  these  evils  are  manifestations  of  con- 
cupiscence. Concupiscence  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  term  is 
the  limited  and  the  selfish  desire  or  volition  due  to  the  sense 
dependence  of  the  embodied  soul,  working  freely  and  limiting 
the  soul.  But  for  original  sin  this  operation  and  potency  of  con- 
cupiscence would  have  been  destroyed  by  the  presence  of  super- 
natural grace  uniting  the  soul  with  God.  Original  sin,  “ the  lack 
of  this  superadded  gift,”  has  enabled  concupiscence  to  bind  the 
soul  within  the  limits  of  selfish  and  sense-conditioned  desires 
and  apprehensions  by  which  bondage  and  limitations  it  has  been 
separated  from  the  Divine  Union.  This  loss  of  supernatural 
elevation  and  its  concomitant  deordination  are  due  to  the  sin  of 
the  first  man  in  virtue  of  the  mysterious  solidarity  of  mankind 
founded  in  their  common  humanity.  Although  the  fact  of  an 
historic  fall  can  be  known  by  faith  alone,  lacking  as  it  does  all 
other  evidence,  the  principle  of  solidarity  through  which  that  fall 
has  operated  as  original  sin  is  an  undeniable  fact  of  experience, 
and  pre-eminently  of  mystical  experience. 

To  the  ultra-individualism  of  nineteenth-century  speculation, 
whereby  the  individual  was  treated  as  a circle  wholly  closed,  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  was  of  necessity  radically  unintelligible. 
That  ultra-individualism  has,  however,  received  mortal  blows 
from  every  quarter.  M.  Bergson,  for  instance,  insists  on  reproduc- 
tion as  a breach  of  that  circle  (V Evolution  Creatrice,  8th  edition, 
p.  14).  An  exaggerated  insistence  on  racial  solidarity — indeed  of 
the  solidarity  of  man  with  the  rest  of  creation — has  succeeded 
the  opposite  exaggeration.  Such  an  exaggerated  solidarity  is 
one  of  the  dominant  motifs  of  Romain  Rolland’s  Jean  Christophe — 
that  novel  so  faithfully  and  so  fully  reflective  of  the  modern 
Zeitgeist.  Yet  it  is,  as  we  have  seen,  in  this  fact  of  human  solid- 
arity— a solidarity  constituted,  moreover,  by  reproduction— that 
original  sin  is  grounded.  It  is  indeed  the  inherited  nature  of 
man,  as  fallen  from  and  exclusive  of  its  supernatural  elevation 
by  the  grace-union  with  God.  Considered  in  this  light,  the 
doctrine  is  in  harmony  with  the  conception  of  solidarity  so 
dominant  in  modern  speculation,  is  indeed  its  application  in  the 
religious  sphere. 

Moreover  the  deordination  of  human  nature,  its  bondage  to 


106  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

concupiscence,  are  data  of  all  truly  religious  experience,  especially, 
therefore,  of  the  experience  of  the  mystic. 

Concupiscence  is  idolatry  in  the  strictest  sense.  For  it  is,  essenti- 
ally, the  making  of  some  limited  good  the  end  of  life.  It  may 
indeed  be  that  this  limited  good  is  of  an  altruistic  nature — the 
good  of  one’s  family,  country,  or  of  mankind.  If  God  be  without 
personal  fault  unknown,  and  if  these  altruistic  goods  be  chosen 
as  the  highest  good  known — this  is  an  imperfect  grasping  after 
God.  This  service  of  other  creatures  as  the  final  end  of  man  is, 
however,  always  essentially  irrational,  because  at  the  end  of  all 
a limit  still  remains.  It  is  only  rendered  possible  by  an  ignor- 
ance of  God,  which  is  itself  the  result  of  sin  in  others.  Altruism 
is  therefore  an  irrational  and  transitory  compromise  between  the 
love  of  concupiscence,  which  prefers  the  limited  good  of  the  creature 
to  the  unlimited  Divine  Good,  and  the  love  of  charity,  which  unites 
the  soul  to  God  by  removing  the  barriers  of  self-will  present  in 
all  love  which  rests  in  the  limited  creature  as  its  end. 

Even  the  briefest  contemplation  of  mankind  suffices  to  reveal 
how  radical  and  how  widely  extended  is  this  perversion  of  our  will. 
Almost  all  men  to  the  end  of  their  lives,  even  if  their  will  be 
radically  united  to  God  in  the  state  of  supernatural  grace — are 
bound  in  undue  bondage  within  the  limitations  of  creatures. 
Vast  multitudes  live  almost  entirely  on  the  surface  of  life — in  the 
gratification  of  the  desires  of  sense.  Many  have  never  unified  their 
life  at  all  by  deliberate  choice  of  any  one  good  deliberately  willed 
as  the  supreme  end  of  life,  but  live,  as  it  were,  from  hand  to 
mouth,  following  in  turn  each  narrowly  limited  desire.  Of  their 
higher  spiritual  faculties  they  know  little,  and  are  never,  or  hardly 
ever,  recollected  in  themselves.  Their  life  is  most  literally  summed 
up  bytlie  words  of  the  Preacher,  “ Vanity  of  vanities ; all  is  vanity.” 
Others  perhaps  have  unified  their  life  more  or  less  completely 
by  one  aim,  but  that  aim  is  very  superficial  and  limited.  It 
therefore  only  serves  to  bind  them  the  closer  within  the  limited. 
Of  course  there  are  moments  of  dissatisfaction,  vague  longings 
for  something  better.  But  the  chains  of  habit  bind  fast — dis- 
tractions are  many — example  is  plentiful — there  is  little  time  for 
thought  in  the  press  of  business  or  dissipation.  The  desire  rises. 
It  is  put  away.  The  cords  are  tightened  around  the  soul.  Others 
are  on  a higher  plane,  have  chosen  a spiritual  and  therefore 
more  unlimited  and  more  real  good.  These  are  happier,  for  there 
is  more  fulness  in  their  life,  greater  reality  in  the  object  of  their 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  107 

love,  and  its  possibilities  are  not  exhausted  so  quickly.  Never- 
theless the  greater  reality,  and  the  more  unlimited  nature  of  their 
idol,  roots  that  idol  the  deeper  in  their  heart.  Such  souls — 
ambitious  men,  lovers  of  military  fame,  political  power,  literary 
or  artistic  success — are  harder  to  convert  and  more  likely  to 
have  fundamentally  and  deliberately  averted  their  will  from 
God  than  the  former  class.  Then  again,  there  are  those  whose 
idol  is  a fellow-being — a wife  or  child — or  a group  of  fellow-beings, 
a party  or  a nation.  These  have  indeed  broken  through  a very 
strong  barrier,  have  achieved  a very  large  measure  of  emancipa- 
tion from  limits,  for  they  have  identified  their  good  with  a good 
higher,  wider  and  more  real  than  their  individual  selfhood — namely, 
the  good  of  other  spiritual  beings.  But  there  is  always  a limit, 
and  with  that  limit  disappointment.  Nevertheless,  souls  who 
make  human  love  their  end  are  the  readiest  to  turn  to  the  love 
of  God. 

Since  God  is  in  the  truest  sense  the  natural  end  of  the  human 
soul,  and  since  in  the  fundamental  Divine  Intention  every  soul 
was  intended  for  supernatural  union  with  God,  there  are,  I think, 
few,  if  indeed  there  be  any,  who  do  not  at  some  time  or  other 
feel  at  least  a vague  craving  for  an  infinite  good,  that  is  in  reality 
for  Him,  though  they  know  it  not  themselves.  Even  in  the  most 
sinful,  in  the  most  self  and  sense-limited  souls,  in  the  depths  below 
the  threshold  of  consciousness,  the  central  ego  still  craves  for  the 
Unlimited  God.  This  central  craving  emerges  into  consciousness 
at  times,  as  at  least  an  indefinable  yearning,  an  apprehension  of, 
a craving  after  an  unknown  Reality  that  will  satisfy  the  emptiness 
of  the  heart  created  for  the  Infinite.  Souls  gifted  intellectually 
or  spiritually  feel  this  craving  and  apprehension  most  often  and 
most  keenly.  This  craving  often  involves  an  intuition  of  the 
Divine  Presence — not  the  supernatural  intuition  of  the  mystic, 
which  is  an  immediate  fruition  of  His  Presence,  but  the  perception 
that  there  is  an  Unlimited  Being  other  than  the  limited  creatures 
in  which  the  soul  cannot  rest.  This  intuitive  perception  may  not 
be,  usually  is  not,  explicitly  present  in  consciousness.  It  is  rather 
the  subconscious  background  of  the  craving  for  the  Unlimited. 
It  is  the  presupposition  and  the  stimulus  of  that  craving.  Were 
not  the  presence  of  the  Unlimited  in  some  way  manifest  to  the 
soul,  the  limited  would  not  be  thus  felt  as  vain  and  unsatisfying. 
Moreover,  this  Presence  is  undeniably  apprehended  in  and  through 
that  craving.  Dissatisfaction  with  the  limited  is  a search  after  the 


108  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Unlimited,  and  that  search  of  the  central  conation  involves  a 
certain  apprehension  of  its  Object  as  existent.  In  many  men 
this  background  intuition  of  the  Presence  of  the  Divine  Being 
tends  to  become  more  or  less  explicitly  conscious,  an  intuition 
concomitant  upon  or  causing  the  will  act.  This  intuition  is, 
however,  still  indirect,  the  apprehension  of  the  existence  of  an 
unknown  Somewhat  immanent  in  external  creation  or  in  the  soul 
itself.  It  is  often  confused  with  some  creature  through  whom 
Its  presence  has  been  revealed.  Next  to  the  man  whose  natural 
bent  is  religious — who  has  a religious  temperament — the  artist  and 
the  poet — both  are  fundamentally  one,  the  media  of  expression 
alone  being  different — enjoy  most  strongly  and  most  often  this 
sense  or  intuition  of  God.  But  we  all  have  some  share  of  the 
religious  temperament,  and  most  of  'us  some  share  also  of  the 
artistic  or  poetical  temperament.  For  this  reason  the  master- 
pieces of  religious  thought,  of  poetry  and  of  art,  so  often  seem  to 
us  like  the  realisation  of  vaguely  apprehended  potencies  in 
ourselves. 

This  sense  of  the  Divine  presence  in  its  lower  and  purely 
natural  forms  is  so  common  that  its  reality  has  been,  and  is, 
admitted  by  many  who  are  far  from  any  faith  that  could  adequately 
interpret  its  nature  in  terms  of  reason.  Even  such  a stalwart 
sceptic  as  Professor  Gilbert  Murray  has  to  admit  its  existence  ; 
and  is  driven  to  explain  it  as  a result  of  inherited  herd-instinct  ! 
(Lecture  on  Stoicism,  concluding  pages.)  This  intuition  of  the 
Divine  Presence  immanent  in  creatures  appears  in  higher,  clearer 
and  more  direct  forms.  Often  it  is  an  apprehension  of  a Presence 
that  far  exceeds  the  creatures  wherein  It  is  manifested  as  im- 
manent, and  is  nevertheless  not  clearly  distinguished  from  them. 
Hence  it  is  often  misinterpreted  intellectually  in  a pantheistic 
or  quasi-pantheistic  sense.  At  other  times  it  is  a clearer  and 
a direct  intuition  of  a Being  wholly  distinct  from  and  infinitely 
transcendent  of  creatures,  and  Who  is  usually  thus  apprehended 
rather  in  the  centre  of  the  soul  than  in  external  nature.  In  this 
clearer  and  more  transcendent  intuition  there  is  present,  I believe, 
a supernatural  element,  an  operation  of  grace,  so  that  it  is  indeed 
the  dawn  of  the  truly  mystical  intuition  of  God.  The  lowest, 
most  obscure  and  purely  immanental  intuition,  on  the  other  hand, 
I regard  as  wholly  natural.  In  proportion  as  the  immanental 
perception  becomes  a clear  consciousness  of  the  Divine  Being 
present  in,  but  other  than,  nature  I am  inclined  to  trace  an 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  109 

increasing  presence  and  working  of  grace — as  I trace  it,  for  instance, 
in  much  that  is  often  termed  nature-mysticism  (see  Chapter  XIV). 
The  progress  from  purely  natural  to  purely  supernatural  intuition 
will  thus  correspond  with  the  progress  from  the  purely  immanental 
to  the  clearly  transcendental  apprehension  of  God.  This  progress 
will  be,  of  course,  incapable  of  accurate  determination  from  the 
external  and  empirical  standpoint  to  which  we  are  of  necessity 
confined.  Nevertheless  there  is  an  absolute  distinction.  There 
is  a definite  point,  though  we  can  never  fix  it,  where  the  super- 
natural that  is  Divine  grace  supervenes  on  the  natural  operation 
of  the  soul,  when  a new  principle  is  introduced.  In  the  intro- 
duction of  this  new  principle  the  transition  from  natural  to 
supernatural  differs  essentially  from  the  gradual  increase  and 
revelation  of  grace  in  mystical  experience. 

A passage  of  Lucie  Christine’s  Spiritual  Journal,  truly  remark- 
able for  its  clarity  and  beauty,  describes  this  gradual  rise  of  intuition 
from  God  immanent  to  God  transcendent,  from  the  purely  natural 
level  to  the  purely  supernatural  level.  We  have  first  a purely 
natural  intuition,  when  her  soul  was  filled  with  natural  beauty 
in  itself,  when,  as  she  tells  us,  “ The  first  glimpse  of  the  sea  from  the 
cliffs  drew  tears  from  my  eyes.  I often  remained  whole  hours 
contemplating  its  immensity  without  being  able  to  express  what 
I felt.”  Then  followed  a level  when  the  intuition  was  still  that 
of  the  nature  mystic — the  perception  of  God  immanent.  But 
that  apprehension  was  so  clear  that  it  surely  postulated  a co- 
operative working  of  supernatural  grace.  “ I sought  Thee,  my 
God,  in  all  things  beautiful  and  in  all  things  I found  Thee.  I 
asked  Thee  of  the  sea  . . . Thou  wast  reposing  in  its  depths  . . . 
I met  Thee  in  the  impenetrable  gloom  of  forests.  I have  felt 
Thee  in  the  hidden  travail  of  nature.”  Finally  followed  a purely 
supernatural  intuition  of  God  transcendent  of  His  creation. 
“ As  the  stars  fade  away  in  the  light  of  the  sun,  so  everything 
grew  pale  in  the  glance  of  God  upon  my  soul ; I gazed  on 
sea  and  land  and  saw  only  God  ” ( Spiritual  Journal,  Eng.  Trs., 
pp.  130-134).  1 

Concomitantly  with  the  intuitional  progress  is  the  progress  of 
the  will-union  which  accompanies  it,  the  volitional  nisus  towards 


1 Of  course  Lucie’s  soul  was  throughout  in  the  supernatural  order.  The 
intuition  was  nevertheless  simply  natural  in  its  earlier  stages  and  could  have 
been  possessed  by  a soul  in  the  order  of  mere  nature.  Not  so  with  the  higher 
levels. 


110  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

God — a progress  from  a merely  natural  craving  for  unlimited  good 
to  the  supernatural  love  of  God. 

I wish  now  to  consider  some  of  the  forms  of  purely  natural 
intuition  and  corresponding  volition  of  the  Unlimited.  I will 
endeavour  to  point  out  their  incapacity  to  admit  the  soul  to  the 
fruition  of  that  Unlimited  Good  that  in  them  is  apprehended  and 
desired.1  When  this  has  been  made  clear,  I will  pass  on  to  the 
life  of  supernatural  grace  and  show  how,  through  that  life  of  grace, 
this  fruition  is  truly  and  fully  obtained,  a fruition  which  is  manifest 
to  the  soul  even  in  this  world,  in  that  higher  form  of  the  grace-life 
which  is  mystical  experience.  This  discussion  cannot  fail  to 
illuminate  the  positive  relationship  or  union  of  the  human  soul 
with  God — of  which  mystical  experience  is  the  most  intimate 
degree  possible  on  earth  and  the  prelude  of  the  perfect  union  of 
heaven. 

Before,  however,  I speak  further  of  the  natural  intuitions  of 
God  and  volitions  towards  Him,  that  are  manifested  in  the 
spiritual  life  of  man,  I must  mention  the  more  usual  way  by  which 
theism  and  its  consequent  will  attitude  towards  God  are  attained 
by  the  normal  man  who  lacks  supernatural  faith.  This  is  the 
way  of  discursive  reason,  of  the  rational  arguments  or  proofs  of 
theism.  Such  is  the  reasoning  of  the  plain  man,  who  from  his 
knowledge  of  creatures  argues  the  existence  of  a Divine  Creator. 
A higher  and  more  complete  form  of  this  reasoning  is  the  intellectual 
or  philosophic  theism  of  the  student  and  thinker  who  is  led  upward 
from  generalisation  to  generalisation,  till  he  catches  a glimpse  of  the 
ultimate  Unity.  These  theistic  proofs  of  the  discursive  reason  serve 
also  to  interpret  the  more  obscure  intuitions  which  would  other- 
wise lack  definite  significance.  Without  this  rational  interpretation 
the  lower  intuitions  would  be  of  scant  value.  Moreover,  whereas 
God  grants  the  intuition  of  His  Presence  to  those  only  Whom  He 
chooses,  the  proofs  of  discursive  reason  lie  open  to  all  sane  men  of 
good  will.  The  natural  theology  reached  by  the  scientific  or 
metaphysical  ladder  of  discursive  reason  is  often  the  precursor 
and  occasion  of  supernatural  faith.  For  this  intellectual  or 
philosophic  theism  arouses  the  will  to  seek  union  with  God, 
since  all  knowledge  carries  with  it  the  possibility  of  corresponding 
volition.  This  volition  is  often  transformed  by  grace  into  true 
charity,  as  the  natural  knowledge  of  God  is  similarly  trans- 

I I will  also  take  occasion  to  point  out  this  incapacity  of  all  kinds  of  higher 
spiritual  life  other  than  the  religious. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  111 

formed  into  faith.  But  surely,  despite  their  sovereign  importance , 
I need  speak  no  further  of  this  rational  knowledge  of  God  and 
of  the  will-union  arising  therefrom.  For  the  matter  is  amply 
treated  in  countless  text-books  and  is  obvious  to  Christian  common- 
sense.  Moreover,  mysticism  has  little  to  do  with  discursive 
reasoning.  It  lies  rather  in  the  province  of  intuition,  and  to 
intuition  I will  therefore  return.  Of  a nature  different  altogether 
from  those  conclusions  of  discursive  reasoning,  which  it  confirms 
and  by  whose  aid  it  is  itself  often  interpreted,  is  the  intuition  of 
the  Divine  Presence  wholly  or  partially  natural,  which  in  various 
degrees  of  clearness  and  obscurity  is  an  experience  by  no  means 
uncommon. 

Indeed  all  true  lovers  of  nature  possess  some  degree  of  this 
intuition,  if  only  in  its  lowest  and  purely  natural  form.  Perhaps 
the  Divine  Presence  is  less  often  felt  at  high  noon,  in  the  blazing 
light  and  scorching  heat  of  a midsummer  day,  when  the  very 
multiplicity  and  wealth  of  natural  phenomena  and  activities 
fill  the  soul,  though  then,  indeed,  it  was  that  Richard  Jefferies 
felt  it  most  of  all.  It  is  perhaps  felt  least  of  all  in  winter,  when  the 
vital  force  of  earth  is  fast  bound,  as  within  bars  of  iron,  by  cold 
and  barrenness.  But  there  are  other  moments  when  we  are 
more  intimately  in  touch  with  the  life  of  nature.  There  is  the 
early  morning  of  spring,  when  the  new-risen  sun  bathes  the  world 
with  clear  and  cool  light,  when  the  birds  are  singing,  and  a soft 
breeze  stirs  the  young  leaves  whose  green  is  so  exquisitely  delicate. 
The  grass  is  starred  with  bright  flowers,  the  blue  dome  of  sky  is 
trellised  around  the  borders  with  interlacing  boughs  of  trees, 
woodland  and  hedgerow  trees  in  new  leaf,  orchard  trees  bright 
with  the  splendour  of  pale  pink  and  snow-white  blossom,  a scene 
such  as  that  imaged  by  Dante  for  the  earthly  paradise.  There 
is  a bathe  in  the  sea  in  the  early  morning,  when  the  fresh  sunlight 
glows  on  the  white  foam  of  the  breaking  billows  whose  energy 
seems  to  penetrate  the  body  and  fill  the  soul  with  the  very  life 
of  nature,  that  life  which  is  the  luxuriant  growth  of  the  vegetation 
and  the  strength  and  swiftness  of  the  untamed  beasts  of  the  field. 
Every  detail  of  the  scene  is  rich  with  a beauty  that  is  sacramental 
of  something  beyond.1  The  white-  or  brown-sailed  fishing-boats 
put  out  to  sea  one  after  the  other  and  glide  swiftly  over  the  blue 
waters,  violet  horizoned,  beneath  a sky  of  paler  and  clearer  blue 

1 Nevertheless  on  this  purely  natural  level  that  farther  something  is  still  un- 
known. The  sacraments  of  nature  cannot  as  yet  be  fruitfully  received. 


112  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

hung  richly  with  white  and  purple  clouds.  The  subtle  grace  of 
their  motion  and  form,  their  fresh  colouring  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  scene  to  which  they  lend  that  touch  of  specifically 
human  significance  which  crowns  and  points  the  natural  beauty, 
like  a windmill  or  church  spire  in  a landscape  of  fields  and  wood- 
land. At  such  moments  as  these  the  soul  is  taken  back  into  that 
primitive  world  when  the  entire  life  of  man  was  in  such  harmony 
with  Nature  that  every  act,  however  simple,  of  human  life  was  a 
communion  with  her  life,  and  an  expression  of  that  life,  and  was 
invested  thereby  with  a mysterious  beauty,  for  it  was  a symbol  of 
the  Spiritual  Reality  of  which  Nature  is  at  once  a revelation  and 
a veil.  In  that  world  of  natural  poetry  Nature  seemed  sufficient 
for  man,  and  his  awful  and  irretrievable  1 loss  of  the  supernatural 
was  scarce  felt.  To  that  world,  the  world  of  Homer  and  the 
sagas,  does  the  soul  now  return.  At  such  moments  physical 
nature  is  enough,  for  the  soul  is  filled  with  beauty  and  life. 

Indeed,  Nature  is  then  felt  as  a mighty  aspiration  after  a life  of 
unlimited  fulness,  an  aspiration  which  bursts  all  bonds  in  a new 
freedom  of  unimpeded  energy,  as  a prayer  so  ecstatic  that  it  seems 
its  own  fulfilment.  In  that  aspiration  and  prayer  our  heart  also 
is  rapt — it  becomes  our  aspiration,  our  prayer,  our  hope,  our 
striving  and  our  present  satisfaction.  But  reason  intervenes, 
asking  the  question  wherefore,  inquiring  the  significance  and  the 
end  of  this  rapture.  Is  it  simply  the  life  of  nature  ? Is  the  object 
of  this  prayer,  this  largely  physical  activity  which  passes  so  swiftly 
away  ? No  ; it  is  not  that ; it  is  an  unlimited  good,  an  eternal 
good — the  everlasting  satisfaction  of  our  entire  being — it  is  God. 
It  is,  however-,  so  far  as  this  natural  experience  is  concerned,  the 
unknown  God  ignorantly  worshipped.  The  experience  cannot 
answer  clearly  the  questioning  of  the  mind.  Ignorant  even  of  its 
own  true  nature  the  intuition,  for  all  its  might,  can  find  no  way  to 
its  enduring  fulfilment.  On  a spring  evening,  when  the  softness  of 
the  waning  light  on  the  fresh  green,  the  pleasant  mildness  of  the 
air,  the  delicate  fragrance  of  the  flowers  and  grass  fill  the  soul  with 
peace,  it  is  rather  a sense  of  an  infinite  presence  behind  these  veils 
that  is  ours.  Gently,  almost  passively,  we  long  after  an  unlimited, 
all-satisfying  Reality  whose  presence  is  dimly  apprehended.  But 
this  gentler  yearning  is  but  the  aspiration  of  the  morning,  mellowed 
and  chastened.  The  prayer  is  the  same  ; the  underlying  presence 
vaguely  felt  is  the  same.  The  same  presence  and  the  same  prayer 
1 1.e.  by  man’s  unaided  powers. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  113 

are  in  the  sound  of  the  wind  among  the  pines,  in  the  murmur  of  the 
waves  as  they  roll  shoreward  on  a summer’s  day.  They  are  in  the 
light  of  the  moon  and  stars,  reflected  in  the  river  on  a summer 
night,  when  the  black  leaves  are  rimmed  by  a margin  of  bright 
silver,  when  the  willows  cast  strange  shadows  and  the  slender 
shapes  of  the  poplars  rise  against  a background  of  silver  cloud. 
They  are  in  the  brilliant  colours  of  sunset,  in  its  gold,  its  flame, 
its  emerald  and  in  its  rose-bloomed  sky.  They  are  in  the  still, 
turquoise  lake  of  hyacinths  that  lies  outspread  beneath  a heaven 
of  chrysoprase,  the  new-born  foliage  of  the  beeches.  The 
prayer,  if  articulated  at  all,  is  articulated  as  a longing  to  secure 
and  possess  eternally  the  reality  underlying  and  manifested  by 
these  fair  forms — an  unending  life,  suggested  by  the  young  life  of 
spring,  an  eternal  peace  veiled  in  the  peaceful  radiance  of  evening 
and  moonlight — in  a word,  the  God  immanent  in  the  becoming  of 
natural  life.  This  reality  seems  so  near  at  such  hours  as  to  be  all 
but  in  our  grasp.  We  reach  out  to  it.  We  imagine,  perhaps, 
that  it  is  itself  the  beauty  presented  to  the  senses.  But  we  cannot 
lay  hold  on  it.  It  is  no  visible  loveliness.  We  clutch  at  phantoms, 
which  vanish  from  the  grasp  of  the  soul  as  Casella  in  Purgatory 
from  the  hand  of  the  living  poet.  As  the  Reality  fades  from  our 
spiritual  vision,  keen  is  our  realisation  of  the  vanity  and  fleeting- 
ness of  the  sensible  beauties  that  revealed  to  us  Its  presence.  We 
know  that  the  splendour  and  the  rich  life  of  spring  and  summer 
will  yield  to  the  barrenness  of  winter,  that  the  tints  will  fade  from 
the  clouds,  that  the  cherry  blossom  will  die.  We  know,  too,  that 
our  power  to  enjoy  these  things  will  soon  pass  away.  A satiety 
of  these  sensible  images  will  destroy  it,  exhausting  our  limited 
capacity  with  the  multiplicity  of  diverse  forms.  The  cares  and 
business  of  life  will  snatch  us  from  this  contemplation,  and  before 
many  years  are  past  old  age  will  make  the  renewed  youth  of  spring 
and  nature  a mockery,  until  death  blots  it  out  for  ever.  Is  not 
tliis  the  secret  of  the  Nietzsche  tragedy — the  attempt  to  satisfy  a 
longing  for  the  infinite  life  of  the  spirit  by  that  lower  life  of  nature 
which  first  revealed  the  presence  of  the  higher,  unlimited  life  ? 
Nietzsche  sought  to  perpetuate  the  first  moment  of  the  Godward 
aspiration  of  the  human  soul — that  moment  of  pure  naturalism — 
with  which  Greek  literature  began,  but  which  cannot  afford  abid- 
ing satisfaction  to  the  human  heart.  This  attempt  to  satisfy  his 
hunger  for  life  eternal  and  infinite  by  the  life  and  energy  of  pure 
nature,  and  thus  to  go  back  on  the  spiritual  progress  of  humanity, 

H 


114  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

resulted  in  a fruitless  antagonism  alike  to  the  intellectual  move- 
ment which  had  rendered  this  naive  naturalism  impossible,  and 
to  that  revelation  of  the  true  spiritual  life  which  is  the  essence 
of  Christianity.  The  attempt  to  find  the  unlimited  life  in  the 
essentially  limited  life  of  nature  was  a self-contradiction.  To 
seek  the  Superman  was  right,  was  indeed  a spiritual  necessity. 
Since,  however,  the  true  Superman  is  the  supernatuial  man  who 
has  been  raised  by  grace  to  partake  of  the  life  of  God,  to  seek  him 
in  a glorification  of  the  natural  man  was  to  render  his  attainment 
an  impossibility.  The  outgoing  of  Nietzsche  after  the  fulness  of 
life  was  checked  by  the  barrier  which  his  own  naturalistic  concep- 
tion of  that  life  had  set  up.  The  consequent  struggle  rent  his  soul 
asunder.  This  tragedy  of  Nietzsche  is  the  inevitable  tragedy  of  a 
neo-paganism  which  would  turn  back  to  Homer,  a world  that  has 
known  Dante,  to  Dionysus,  a world  that  has  known  Christ.  This 
inadequacy  of  naturalism  has  been  stated  with  great  force,  clarity 
and  beauty  by  St  John  of  the  Cross.  In  the  fifth  and  sixth  stanzas 
of  the  Spiritual  Canticle  St  John  shows  how  creatures  can  only 
point  out  a God  Whom  they  cannot  bestow.  “ In  the  contem- 
plation,” he  says,  “ and  knowledge  of  created  things  the  soul  be- 
holds such  a multiplicity  of  graces,  powers  and  beauty  wherewith 
God  has  endowed  them,  that  they  seem  to  it  to  be  clothed  with 
admirable  beauty  and  natural  virtue,  derived  and  communicated 
from  the  infinite  supernatural  beauty  of  the  face  of  God,  Whose 
beholding  of  them  clothed  the  heavens  and  the  earth  with  beauty 
and  joys.  Hence  the  soul,  wounded  with  love  of  that  beauty  of 
the  Beloved  which  it  traces  in  created  things,  and  anxious  to  be- 
hold that  beauty  which  is  the  source  of  this  visible  beauty,  sings : 

Oh,  who  can  heal  me  ? 

Give  me  perfectly  Thyself. 

Send  me  no  more 
A messenger 

Who  cannot  tell  me  what  I wish. 

As  created  beings  furnish  to  the  soul  traces  of  the  Beloved,  and 
exhibit  the  impress  of  His  beauty  and  magnificence,  the  love  of 
the  soul  increases  and  consequently  the  pain  of  his  absence.  . . . 
As  it  sees  that  there  is  no  remedy  for  this  pain  except  in  the 
personal  vision  of  the  Beloved  ...  it  prays  for  the  fruition  of 
His  presence,  saying : “ Entertain  me  no  more  with  any  know- 
ledge or  communications  or  impressions  of  Thy  grandeur,  for 
these  do  but  increase  my  longing  and  the  pain  of  Thy  absence  : 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  115 

Thy  presence  alone  can  satisfy  my  will  and  desire.”  This  fruition 
lies  not  in  nature- — for  it  infinitely  transcends  Nature.  We  can- 
not apprehend  and  detain  the  Reality  of  which  we  are  vaguely 
conscious,  for  it  is  wholly  other  than  the  outward  forms  that  sug- 
gest and  symbolise  it.  It  is  certainly  true  that  the  nature  mystics 
have  received  an  experience  of  God  through  nature,  mystics 
such  as  Wordsworth  and  Richard  Jefferies.  This  was,  however, 
either  a purely  external  apperception  of  a Reality  not  inwardly 
apprehended,  or  else,  as  I believe  was  certainly  the  case  with 
Richard  Jefferies,  supernatural  grace  bore  a part  in  the  experi- 
ence, which  was  thus  raised  to  the  rank  of  true  supernatural 
mysticism.1  To  those,  indeed,  who  are  in  a state  of  grace,  and 
who  are  seeking  God  supernaturally  in  prayer,  these  passing 
intuitions  of  God’s  immanence  in  nature  are,  as  it  were,  the  occa- 
sion of  an  inward  union  with  Him  by  the  will  union  of  prayer  to 
which  such  experiences  give  rise.  Apart  from  the  working  of 
grace,  this  sense  of  the  Divine  immanence  only  occasions  vague 
and  vain  longings  for  an  unknown  God. 

To  the  artist  and  the  poet  the  sacramentalism  of  material 
nature  as  a manifestation  and  symbol  of  spiritual  ideas,  and 
ultimately  of  some  incomprehensible  spiritual  good,  is  more 
apparent  than  to  other  men,  and  it  is  more  deeply  realised  by 
them  than  it  is  by  ordinary  lovers  of  natural  beauty.  By  the 
exercise  of  intuitive  imagination,  termed  by  Ruskin  imagination 
penetrative,  they  seize  on  these  inner  spiritual  realities,  and  so 
present  their  rendering  of  corporeal  forms  as  to  bring  out  this 
underlying  spiritual  and  ideal  significance.  Of  the  vast  multitude 
of  detail,  which  in  the  actual  phenomena  of  nature  and  human  life 
distracts  and  overcrowds  the  mind  of  the  observer,  they  select 
those  features  which  are  suggestive  of  the  particular  idea  or 
spiritual  reality  which  they  desire  to  present.  Hence  the  poetic 
description  of  a scene,  or  its  pictorial  representation,  often  moves 
us  more  strongly  than  the  actual  scene  described  or  depicted.  We 
see  more  in  it  than  we  ever  did  before,  enter  more  deeply  into  its 
soul  or  spiritual  significance,  and  receive  suggestions  of  an  infinite 
spiritual  good  or  Being  underlying  and  unifying  all  that  we  see 
and  feel.  Thus  it  is  that  art  in  its  various  forms,  as  also  that 
unconscious  art  which  constitutes  mythology,  conveys  a higher, 
though  a more  indefinable  and  obscure,  truth  than  is  contained  in 
the  more  definite  teaching  of  physical  science.  Indeed,  it  is  just 

1 See  Chapter  XIV. 


116  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

because  the  truth  of  art,  of  poetry,  of  mythology  is  more  spiritual, 
and  therefore  less  limited,  than  the  truth  of  physical  science,  that 
it  is  less  susceptible  of  exact  formulation.  Hence  the  destruction 
of  a myth,  if  it  be  not  replaced  by  some  truer  presentation  of 
spiritual  reality,  entails  a loss  of  truth.  Take,  for  instance,  the 
case  of  a child  taught  to  believe  that  the  woods  and  fields  around 
his  home  are  peopled  with  fairies.  When  he  grows  older  that 
belief  is  shattered,  those  woods  and  fields  are  henceforth  empty  of 
their  unseen  inhabitants  and  he  no  longer  feels  himself  surrounded 
in  his  walks  abroad  by  the  presence  of  these  kindly  and  protecting 
spirits.  Suppose  this  vanished  belief  to  be  replaced,  not  by  know- 
ledge of  the  immanence  of  God  in  nature,  and  of  the  presence  of 
the  angelic  hosts  watching  over  the  lives  of  men — perhaps  also 
guiding  the  physical  forces — but  by  the  mere  knowledge  of  the 
physical  causes,  principles  and  laws  which  are  the  subject-matter 
of  natural  science.  Such  an  one  has  lost  truth  by  the  exchange. 
He  has,  it  is  true,  discarded  a childish  error,  but  with  that  error  he 
has  parted  with  a fundamental  truth  of  immense  significance,  the 
truth  that  material  nature  is  the  habitation  and  expression  of 
spirit.  His  view  of  the  Universe  is  now  confined  to  its  lower 
and  material  aspect,1  that  which  is  least  real,  because  most 
narrowly  limited  and  consequently  most  lacking  in  being.  Suppose 
that  child  to  become  a learned  botanist.  He  knows  less  of  the 
trees  and  flowers  now,  when  he  can  explain  all  the  physical  con- 
stituents and  forces  which  have  gone  to  their  making,  than  he  did 
when  he  believed  that  the  fairies  danced  in  the  shade  of  the  trees 
and  watered  the  flowers  with  drops  of  dew.  He  can  now  explain 
the  mechanism  of  plants,  but  he  has  lost  the  knowledge  he  once 
possessed  (expressed  though  it  was  in  an  inadequate  and  therefore 
erroneous  form)  of  the  spiritual  reality  which  is  their  true  soul, 
the  ground  of  their  life.  A more  extensive  and  a more  accurate 
understanding  of  the  body  is  poor  compensation  for  ignorance  of 
the  soul.  The  botanist’s  knowledge  of  chlorophyll  and  carbon,  of 
the  laws  of  growth  and  reproduction,  and  of  the  classification  of 
orders  and  genera  is  abstract  and  unreal  by  comparison  with  that 
knowledge  of  the  spiritual  immanent  in  physical  nature  which 
was  contained  in  the  child’s  belief  that  the  flowers  feel  and  sym- 
pathise with  its  own  feeling,  and  are  the  dwelling-places  of  friendly 
elves  or  beautiful  fairies.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  Our  Lord 
told  us  that  we  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  except  we 

1 Blake’s  “ single  vision.” 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  117 

become  as  little  children — that  is,  unless  we  return  to  the  child’s 
simple  faith  and  personal  apprehension  of  the  spiritual  reality 
underlying,  indwelling  and  operative  in  the  material  universe. 
Our  spiritual  progress  must  therefore  possess  a somewhat 
circular  character  from  faith  through  scientific  and  logical  reason- 
ing to  a deeper  faith,  from  a personal  but  narrowly  limited 
apprehension  of  the  spiritual,  through  theoretical  study  and 
practical  handling  of  the  material  and  its  impersonal  mechanism, 
to  an  even  more  personal  but  increasingly  less  limited  apprehen- 
sion of  the  spiritual.  (Cf.  Baron  von  Hiigel,  Mystical  Element  of 
Religion,  vol.  i.,  pp.  60-70.)  This  cycle  is  exemplified  in  the 
spiritual  history  of  European  civilisation.  The  Greeks  began 
with  a childish  belief  in  Divine  presences  that  indwelt  the  forces  of 
nature.  The  universe  was  full  of  gods,  their  palace,  nay,  their 
very  garment.  The  clear  air  was  the  abode  of  Zeus  the  All-F ather, 
the  sapphire  waters  of  the  sea  were  the  realm  of  Poseidon,  and  in 
its  waves,  crested  with  white  foam  and  penetrated  with  the  bright 
sunlight,  danced  the  graceful  forms  of  the  sea  nymphs.  Divine 
presences  dwelt  in  the  cool  fountain  and  in  the  river  swollen  with 
the  winter  rains.  In  the  green  silence  of  the  forest  glade  might  be 
heard  the  soft  footfall  of  the  dryads,  and  in  the  wild  passes  of  the 
hills  the  lonely  traveller  might  meet,  as  did  Philipides,  the  day 
runner,  the  awful  yet  kindly  Pan.  Such  was  the  world  of  Homer, 
and  such  was  still,  in  great  measure,  the  world  of  Herodotus.1  But 
this  inadequate  and  crude  expression  of  the  spiritual  was  self- 
doomed,  despite  its  exquisite  beauty.  It  could  not  endure  the 
light  of  a more  mature  reason.  The  moralist  made  short  work  of 
its  immoralities,  the  natural  philosopher  discarded  its  anthropo- 
morphic explanation  of  physical  phenomena.  Euripides  and 
Anaxagoras  replaced  Homer  and  Hesiod.  But  the  soul  of  man 
could  not  rest  there.  The  new  physical  and  mechanical  explana- 
tion of  reality  was  less  true  than  the  mythology  which  it  had 
destroyed.  It  failed  to  account  for  just  that  which  is  most  real 
and  most  ultimate  in  human  experience.  Hence  a spiritualistic 
reaction  was  inevitable.  Nor  was  it  slow  in  coming.  It  began  to 
make  itself  felt  in  Orphism  and  a little  later  in  Socrates,2  the  first 

1 It  must  not,  however,  be  forgotten  that  there  was  another  and  a very  im- 
portant aspect  of  Greek  religion — that  of  the  Cthonic  deities  and  cults.  The 
aspect  emphasised  above  was  pre-eminently  the  religion  of  the  Achaeans. 

2 Professor  Burnet  ( Greek  Philosophy , vol.  i.)  seems  to  establish  successfully 
his  thesis  that  the  mystical  element  in  the  Platonic  dialogues  is  essentially  Socratic. 
He  maintains,  moreover,  that  Socrates  was  himself  an  initiate  of  Orphism. 


118  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

great  mystic  of  Europe.  Though  after  his  death  it  was  checked 
for  some  centuries  by  the  materialistic  development  of  secular 
civilisation,  it  was  never  wholly  destroyed.  It  was  chiefly  kept 
alive  in  the  Dionysic-Orphic  cults  and  in  the  mysteries  of  the  more 
official  Hellenic  religion.  At  length  the  Christian  revelation  came, 
with  its  fulness  of  spiritual  truth,  and  was  received  by  all  that  was 
deepest  in  the  soul  of  the  ancient  world.  It  was  no  longer  loss 
but  gain  to  disbelieve  in  nereid  and  hamadryad,  in  mighty  god 
and  beauteous  goddess,  when  these  crude  beliefs  were  replaced  by 
the  doctrine  of  angelic  powers  at  work  behind  the  phenomena  of 
nature,  by  the  knowledge  of  Jesus,  the  all-perfect  Man  Who  is  also 
God  Almighty,  and  of  His  immaculate  Mother,  so  ineffably 
beautiful  in  the  spotless  purity  of  her  soul  and  in  the  unimaginable 
splendour  of  its  physical  expression  her  assumed  body,  and  above 
and  in  all  these  by  the  knowledge  of  God — goodness  absolute, 
beauty  absolute  and  truth  absolute,  present  in  all  His  creatures, 
material  and  spiritual  alike,  sustaining  them  in  their  being,  co- 
operating in  their  working  and  manifesting  in  and  through  them 
His  beauty  and  His  truth,  His  wisdom  and  His  love. 

Although  the  truth  of  physical  science  and  the  truth  of  art  are 
alike  aspects  of  the  Absolute  Truth — that  is,  of  God — the  latter  is 
the  higher,  deeper  and  fuller  truth,  and  therefore  far  nearer  to  the 
Divine  Truth  and  Being,  which  contains  both  eminently.  We  are 
beginning  now  to  see  this.  We  are  coming  to  learn  that  the 
destruction  of  even  the  crudest  superstition  is  not  gain  but  loss, 
unless  the  spiritual  truth  conveyed  thus  crudely  and  inadequately 
by  that  superstition  is  preserved  in  a more  adequate  expression. 
We  are  beginning  to  realise  that  poetry  and  symbolism,  music  and 
painting,  legend  and  parable  contain  more  truth,  tell  us  more  of 
ultimate  reality,  bring  us  into  a closer  contact  with  that  reality 
— in  a word,  give  us  more  knowledge  of  God  than  do  the  exact 
definitions  and  clear  concepts  of  mathematics  and  physical 
science.  Indeed  it  is  only  in  the  light  of  the  spiritual  and  sacra- 
mental vision  of  the  universe  which  is  reflected  by  art,  though,  as 
we  shall  see,  adequately  given  and  secured  by  religion  alone,  that 
scientific  knowledge  can  possess  its  full  value.  It  is  only  when  we 
realise  that  all  the  principles  and  laws  of  matter  are  sacramental 
of  a spiritual  reality,  are  manifestations  and  operations  of  spirit, 
that  we  appreciate  their  true  significance.  As  a result  of  that 
knowledge  science  itself  becomes  assimilated  to  poetry — no  longer 
confining  the  soul  within  the  limits  of  matter,  but  opening  new 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  119 

avenues  to  knowledge  and  worship  of  the  Divine  Author  of  the 
facts  and  laws,  which  it  is  her  province  to  discover  and  expound. 
Art,  however,  always  retains  her  pre-eminence,  for  her  apprehension 
and  presentation  of  spiritual  reality  is  fuller  and  more  direct,  her 
truth  deeper  and  less  limited,  and  her  message  is  therefore  a more 
adequate  vehicle  of  the  Infinite  Reality  and  Truth  that  is  God. 

Nevertheless  the  artist  cannot  altogether  free  himself  from 
the  limited.  He  is  unable  to  transcend  the  material  image  or 
symbol  in  which  he  must  of  necessity  embody  and  present  the 
spiritual  and  apprehend  in  its  purity  and  immateriality  the  Divine 
Idea,  underlying  that  material  image,  and,  through  that  idea,  the 
infinite  Being  of  God,  of  Whom  even  the  ultimate  spiritual  ideas 
are  but  aspects.  Unless  grace  unite  him  to  God,  his  soul  is  bound 
fast  within  the  limitations  of  the  corporeal  images  which  he  em- 
ploys and  he  can  never  wholly  transcend  their  physical  beauty. 
The  necessity  for  its  perpetual  mediation  between  his  soul  and  the 
Divine  Beauty  debars  him  from  the  fruition  of  the  latter.  Art 
draws  aside  the  curtains  that  veil  the  windows  of  man’s  sense- 
limited  and  self-limited  experience.  Through  the  windows  thus 
unveiled  by  art  the  artist  looks  out  over  the  wide  spaces  of  the 
spiritual  universe,  bathed  in  the  sunlight  of  God’s  creative  and 
sustaining  love,  and  over  the  storm-tossed  waters  of  the  deep  and 
“ perilous  seas  ” of  his  own  soul,  lit  by  the  soft  moonlight  of  God’s 
secret  Presence.  But  Art  is  powerless  to  do  more  than  this.  She 
cannot  open  those  windows  so  that  the  soul  may  go  forth  in 
freedom.  The  will  is  still  imprisoned  within  the  limits  of  the 
creature  bound  with  the  chain  of  its  natural  self-seeking,  self- 
centred  and  self-impelled  activity.  So  long  as  the  picture  is 
shown,  and  the  music  heard,  the  artist  feels  himself  one  with 
Infinite  love,  and  the  universe  that  It  made,  a freeman  of  infinity. 
The  picture  is  left,  the  music  is  still.  He  goes  home  and  torments 
his  wife  because  the  dinner  has  been  badly  cooked.  Despite 
Blake,  art  is  not  religion.  Not  by  art  can  man  obtain  the  fruition 
of  God,  for  which  he  was  created.  Hence  is  born  “the  pain  that 
the  sight  of  great  beauty  brings  ” (Pearse,  The  Singer).1 

Blind  and  barren  intuitions  of  God  are  also  abundantly  present 
in  human  love,  in  its  passion  and  its  sacrifice.  The  lower  forms  of 
love  are,  of  course,  simply  instinctive  and  animal,  but  I do  not 

1 Need  I say  that  I am  speaking  only  of  the  artist  qua  artist,  the  artist  apart 
from  religion.  Far  from  excluding  or  hindering  the  effective  union  of  religion, 
art  often  prepares  the  way  to  its  reception. 


120  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

refer  to  these.  In  the  higher  forms  of  love  the  instinctive  and 
animal  elements  are  felt  to  be  insufficient  and  are  idealised  more 
or  less  consciously.  The  higher  the  love  the  greater  is  the  idealisa- 
tion. Commonest  and  most  typical  is  the  idealisation  of  that  love 
which  is  normally  the  only  absorbing  and  passionate  love  in  human 
life,  the  love  of  man  and  woman.  This  idealisation  is  at  root  the 
transference  to  a created  object,  to  a human  beloved,  of  the  soul’s 
love  of  a perfect  and  by  implication  of  an  unlimited  Goodness  and 
Beauty,  that  are  realised  only  in  God.  Therefore  this  idealising 
love  involves  a certain  intuition  of  a Perfect  Object  of  Love — a 
Being  Wholly  and  therefore  Unlimitedly  lovable.  This  outgoing 
of  the  soul  through  the  will  to  a perfect  and  therefore  Absolute 
Goodness,  to  the  Absolute  Beauty  is,  however,  deflected  to  the 
narrowly  limited  goodness  and  beauty  of  a fellow-creature.  The 
wholly  lovable,  vaguely  apprehended  is  sought  in  a necessarily 
imperfect  creature.  The  Absolute  and  Altogether  lovely  Loveli- 
ness is  sought  in  the  beloved,  to  whom  it  is  unwarrantably  trans- 
ferred by  the  lover  in  the  idolatry  of  his  love.  In  vain  is  it  sought 
thus.  The  end  of  this  search  for  the  Unlimited  in  the  limited  is, 
of  necessity,  disillusion  and  disaster.  For  the  love  of  the  Infinite 
cannot  be  satisfied  by  aught  that  is  finite.  No  created  love  can 
fill  the  boundless  craving  of  the  human  heart  for  a love  that  is 
boundless.  If  indeed  the  intuition  and  love  of  the  Unlimited 
were  self-conscious  as  such,  this  illicit  transference  of  that  intuition 
and  that  love  to  a human  being  could  not  be  effected.  As,  how- 
ever, it  is  not  thus  fully  self-conscious,  the  mistaken  transference 
is  made  and  bears  in  due  season  its  bitter  fruit.  Moreover,  the 
greater  the  capacity  and  intensity  of  love  in  the  lover,  the  more 
inadequate  is  the  beloved,  however  noble  and  fair,  to  correspond 
with  it  and  to  satisfy  it.  The  higher,  moreover,  the  notion  or 
ideal  formed  by  the  lover  of  the  Absolute  Perfection  that  he  seeks, 
the  greater  is  his  idealisation  of  the  beloved,  and  the  piore,  there- 
fore, does  the  beloved  fall  short  of  that  ideal  and  disappoint  the 
expectation  of  the  lover.  Truly  is  it  said  that  love  is  blind,  and 
blindest  is  the  love  of  the  noblest  and  deepest  hearts.  This  is  the 
reason  that  poets  and  other  artists  are  usually  so  unhappy  in  their 
loves  and  marriages.  They  are  really  in  love  with  infinite  good- 
ness and  beauty.  Though  they  do  not  consciously  identify 
absolute  and  infinite  goodness  with  the  goodness  of  a creature 
which  would  be  a self-evident  absurdity,  they  do  this  in  practice 
by  directing  to  the  beloved  their  love  of  infinite  goodness  and  by 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  121 

investing  the  beloved  with  that  most  lofty  and  most  far-reaching — 
indeed,  potentially  limitless — ideal  of  goodness  which  they  have 
formed.  Ignorant  that  this  is  to  be  found  and  enjoyed  in  a 
personal  self-communicating  God,  they  seek  it  in  a creature 
clothed  by  their  love  with  perfections  that  belong  only  to  the 
Infinite  Creator.  Of  course  the  essential  limits  of  the  beloved 
soon  disillusion  them.  But  they  repeat  the  error  and  replace  the 
fallen  idol  by  another.  This  is  the  profoundest  idolatry  and 
therefore  the  most  cruel  tragedy  of  the  human  heart.  Sooner  or 
later,  indeed,  the  lover  realises  to  his  cost  that  human  love  cannot 
satisfy  the  soul’s  need.  Either  the  beloved  proves  unworthy,  or 
external  circumstances  prevent  or  cut  short  the  fruition  of  their 
love.  “ The  lover  is  unloved.  The  beloved  does  not  love.  The 
lover  who  is  loved  is  sooner  or  later  torn  from  his  love.” 1 
It  is  in  truth  only  the  barrier  of  opposing  circumstances 
that  renders  possible  any  long-continued  illusion.  Romeo  and 
Juliet  could  not  have  remained  at  their  height  of  idealising  passion 
had  not  death  overtaken  them  almost  immediately.2  But  even 
then  these  poets  and  artists  do  not  perceive  the  cause  of  their 
failure  and  they  ascribe  it  to  the  essential  tragedy  and  vanity  of 
human  life.  Think  only  of  Wagner’s  Tristan  und  Ysolde.  The 
absolute  mutual  surrender  of  the  entire  being  in  love  which 
dominates  that  opera  is  obviously  such  as  no  human  being  is 
adequate  in  himself  or  herself  to  inspire  and  return.  The  aspira- 
tion and  need  of  the  lovers  for  a Beloved  wholly  and  everlastingly 
lovable,  ignorant  of  its  true  object,  took  occasion  from  physical 
passion  to  idolise  the  object  of  that  passion  by  its  identification 
with  that  absolute  Goodness  and  Beauty.  In  this  case  the 
tragedy  arose  out  of  the  external  limitations  of  circumstance  ; but 
its  coming  was  inevitable.  Either  the  internal  limitations  of  the 
beloved,  or  the  external  limitations  imposed  by  circumstances, 
satiety  or  mutability  must  sooner  or  later  shatter  the  idol  into 
dust,  dissolve  the  mirage  that  hid  for  a moment  the  desert  waste 
and  arouse  the  dreamer  from  his  fair  vision  of  bliss  to  a bitter 
awakening  of  disillusionment  and  tears.  Hence  the  universal 
wail  of  lamentation  that  ascends  from  the  pages  of  literature,  that 
love  cannot  endure,  that  it  perishes  in  the  very  hour  of  fruition. 
Why  need  I quote  the  poets  in  proof  of  this  ? To  cite  innumerable 
passages  would  be  a useless  weariness.  For  the  expression  of  this 

1 Romain  Rolland,  Jean  Christophe,  Eng.  trs.,  vol.  ii. , p.  93. 

2 Compare  Ibsen’s  treatment  of  “ the  law  of  change  ” in  Little  Eyolf. 


122  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

sorrow  I would  but  refer  to  Keats’  odes  on  the  Nightingale  and  the 
Grecian  Urn — particularly  to  the  latter,  for  its  expression  of  the 
hopeless  longing  for  eternal  possession  that  dwells  in  the  heart  of 
love’s  most  fervent  rapture.  To  the  operation  of  this  idolatry  in 
actual  life  there  is  the  eloquent  testimony  afforded  by  the  life  of 
Shelley.  Having  caught  a glimpse  of  “intellectual,”  that  is  of 
spiritual,  of  divine  beauty,  he  vainly  sought  to  embody  it  in  the 
woman  he  loved.  For  the  inevitable  result  let  us  rather  pity  than 
condemn.  Dante,  on  the  contrary,  being  a Catholic,  indeed,  a 
mystic,  as  well  as  a poet,  learnt  that  no  earthly  woman  can  be 
the  adequate  embodiment  of  Perfect  Beauty  and  Worth.  He 
therefore  changed  his  Beatrice  into  a symbol  of  the  Christian 
revelation  and  its  grace,  through  which  our  love  reaches  its  true 
goal.  Hence  it  is  that  his  great  poem,  almost  alone  among  the 
supreme  achievements  of  literature,  is  not  a tragedy  of  infinite 
aspiration,  thwarted  by  limits  and  change,  but  a Divine  Comedy 
of  its  eternal  satisfaction  in  God.  Plato,  indeed,  had  already  ex- 
pressed and  explained  the  essential  vanity  of  limited  and  mutable 
creatures,  and  had  risen  beyond  them  to  the  eternal  ideas.  Most 
poets  and  artists,  however,  have  preferred  the  lower  way,  as  indeed 
has  the  modern  age  as  a whole.  Hence  it  is  that  modern  life  and 
literature  are  so  sorrowful,  so  disillusioned,  so  world-weary. 

Neither  can  altrustic  endeavour  for  the  betterment  of  human 
life  on  earth  avail  to  satisfy  the  soul’s  need,  to  provide  it  with  a 
way  of  escape  from  the  limits  of  creatures  to  the  Unlimited,  which 
it  has  dimly  apprehended  and  for  which  it  obscurely  but  deeply 
yearns.  It  must,  perforce,  lack  the  intensity  of  individual  human 
love,  and  like  that  love  is  wrecked  by  limit  and  its  consequent 
mutability.  Even  if  these  altruistic  schemes  were  to  succeed  on 
a large  scale- — which  they  can  never  do  in  a world  where  the  vast 
majority  are  self-seekers — they  could  not  satisfy  the  soul  hunger 
for  the  infinite.  Mill,  with  a fearless  honesty  deserving  of  the 
highest  praise,  confessed  this  bitter  truth.  To  anyone  who  has  in 
the  least  felt  that  hunger  for  the  bread  of  angels  which  religion 
alone  can  satisfy,  the  naive  belief  of  writers  like  Mr  Bernard  Shaw 
in  this  worldly  progress,  in  socialism,  in  the  universal  diffusion  of 
a purely  intellectual  enlightenment,  is  at  once  so  pathetic,  so 
ludicrous  and  so  exasperating  that  the  reader  scarce  knows 
whether  to  weep,  to  laugh  or  to  be  angry.  Nor,  again,  can  our 
need  of  the  unlimited  be  satisfied  by  pure  ethics  without  religion. 
If  non-religious  morality  breaks  through  some  limits,  it  imposes 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  123 

others  far  more  destructive  of  the  soul’s  true  liberty.  It  binds  the 
love  impulse  with  the  iron  chains  of  a loveless  legalism  and 
respectability.  It  either  confines  the  soul  within  the  limits  of 
purely  external  duty  or  imposes  a task  which  it  can  never  perform. 
The  barrier  set  by  this  external  and  legal  ethics  is  often  harder  to 
remove  than  the  more  superficial  and  narrower  limits  of  many 
sins — especially  those  carnal  sins  of  all  kinds,  which  this  legalistic 
ethic  treats  as  the  worst  of  all,  because  the  most  obvious,  and 
therefore  the  most  opposed  to  external  propriety.  In  reality  the 
Bohemian,  “ the  publican,”  often  possesses  a love  and  aspiration 
— however  perverted  and  deformed — after  infinite  Goodness, 
which  is  wholly  non-existent  in  the  highly  respectable  Pharisee 
who  condemns  him.  Modern  philosophers  and  men  of  letters  are 
apt  to  reject,  even  to  make  mock  of,  conventional  morality.  For 
instance,  conventional  morality  is  the  object  of  attack  and  derision 
throughout  the  plays  of  such  typical  modern  dramatists  as  Bernard 
Shaw,  Galsworthy  and  Hankin.  Am  I,  then,  a Catholic,  in  agree- 
ment with  this  “ advanced  thought  ” ? Do  I also  desire  the 
destruction  of  conventional  morality  ? Here  a careful  distinction 
is  necessary,  a distinction  whose  observance  would  enable  Catholics 
to  answer  clearly  and  effectively  the  anti-moral  teaching  of  many 
representatives  of  modern  thought.  Conventional  morality  is  an 
equivocal  term  by  which  two  distinct  things  may  be  understood. 
It  may  mean  either  the  moral  standard  which  is  maintained  by 
convention  or  moral  practice  motived  by  obedience  to  convention. 
In  the  former  sense  conventional  morality,  though  grossly  inade- 
quate and  to  a large  extent  actually  false,  does  indubitably  con- 
tain a valuable  element  of  ethical  truth.  To  attack  conventional 
morality  thus  understood  is  to  attack  truth  as  well  as  falsehood, 
to  root  up  the  wheat  together  with  the  tares.  Conventional 
morality,  however,  when  understood  in  the  second  sense,  is  sheer 
evil,  a thing  that  is  intrinsically  base  and  mean,  worse  in  many 
respects  than  immorality  itself.  The  modern  opponents  of  con- 
ventional morality  have  confounded  the  former  with  the  latter  in 
one  indiscriminate  condemnation.  By  investing  conventional 
morality  in  the  former  sense  with  the  odium  justly  due  to  con- 
ventional morality  in  the  latter  sense,  they  have  confused  the 
issues  and  won  a cheap  but  empty  victory.  We  therefore  must 
keep  clearly  before  us  the  distinction  which  our  adversaries  ignore. 
We  must  maintain  strictly  the  moral  standard  of  Christianity  with 
which  the  standard  of  popular  morality  to  some  degree — though 


124  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

but  partially — coincides.  On  the  other  hand  we  must  wage  un- 
remitting warf&re  against  morality  motived  by  convention,  by 
mere  regard  for  good  appearances  in  the  eyes  of  our  neighbours. 
Such  a morality  is  the  bondage  of  the  human  soul  within  extremely 
narrow  limits.  It  is  the  positive  exclusion  of  the  supernatural, 
whereby  our  moral  action  and  life  are  rendered  a way  of  escape 
from  the  limited  to  the  Unlimited,  from  the  human  to  the  Divine. 
Such  respectable  morality  is  therefore  the  destruction  of  Divine 
love.  It  is  a form  of  the  larv  of  dead  works  opposed  to  grace,  that 
law  from  whose  bondage  we  were  freed  by  Christ.  For  Christians 
to  act  morally  from  a motive  of  conventional  respectability  is 
simply  to  exchange  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel,  the  liberty  of  the 
unlimited  Godhead  with  Whom  we  are  united  by  grace,  for  the  old 
servitude  of  the  merely  natural  and  creaturelv.  As  Seheeben 
points  out  ( Dogmatik , French  translation,  vol.  iii.,  p.  537),  “ the 
moral  ends  ” of  “a  creature  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a child  of 
God  ” — i.e.  to  the  supernatural  order  of  grace  beyond  the  limits 
of  nature — “ are  quite  different  to  the  moral  ends  of  a mere 
creature.”  It  follows  from  this  that  moral  conduct  motived  by 
these  lower  and  merely  natural  ends,  and  therefore  conventional 
morality  in  the  sense  of  morality  motived  by  regard  to  conven- 
tion, is  transcended  and  abolished  by  the  grace  of  Christ.  The 
fulfilment  of  charity,  which  is  a boundless  energy,  an  unlimited 
fulness  of  life,  not  the  limited  and  limiting  obedience  to  the 
demands  of  convention  and  respectability,  is  the  ethical  principle 
of  the  true  Christian,  who  is  thus  in  the  infinity  of  the  former  freed 
from  the  narrow  limits  of  the  latter,  limits  justly  odious  to  the 
greater  souled  and  wider  minded  among  the  pagans,  who,  how- 
ever, are  unhappily  ignorant  of  the  true  way  to  their  removal. 
But  surely  I need  not  labour  the  point.  We  have  but  to  read  the 
Epistles  of  St  Paul,  remembering  that  conventional  morality — 
indeed  all  morality  practised  from  a merely  natural  motive— -of 
which  morality  motived  by  respectability  is  the  most  limited  and 
limiting  and  therefore  the  lowest  species — is  the  modern  representa- 
tive of  the  Pauline  law.  Then  we  shall  fully  realise  that  irreligious 
morality — above  all,  the  hypocritical  sham  which  is  the  modern 
social  substitute  for  lost  Christianity — is  one  of  the  closest  and 
darkest  dungeons  wherein  the  human  soul  can  be  confined  and 
debarred  from  the  Divine  infinity.  For  it  is,  as  was  said  above, 
more  limited  and  more  limiting  than  many  forms  of  positive  sin 
and  therefore  more  removed  from  and  more  opposed  to  God  even 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  125 

than  they.  From  this  narrow  confinement,  from  this  spiritual 
dungeon  we  can  be  freed  and  brought  into  true  liberty,  not  by  the 
moral  anarchy  of  the  “ emancipated  ” freethinker,  which  would  be 
but  an  exchange  of  prisons — though  an  exchange  from  a narrower 
to  a wider  prison-house — but  by  the  grace  of  God  through  Christ 
Our  Lord,  whereby  we  are  made  free  of  the  Infinite  and  the 
Eternal  in  “ that  freedom  in  which  Christ  hath  made  us  free.”  1 

It  may  indeed  be  that  by  non-religious  ethics  is  understood  a 
striving  after  an  infinite  goodness,  in  which  case  it  is  the  worship 
of  the  unknown  God  and  is  not  really  secular  in  character.  But 
truly  secular  ethics,  even  in  its  noblest  forms,  must,  as  we  have 
seen,  be  limited  and  therefore  unable  to  satisfy  the  deepest  craving 
of  the  human  heart.  This  love  must  be  directed  to  its  true  end 
and  find  its  true  goal,  and  no  natural  means  can  avail  to  effect  this. 
No  natural  experience  or  activity  is  therefore  able  to  render  the 
human  soul  truly  happy.  It  cannot  free  the  soul  from  the  limits 
of  the  creature  to  unite  it  to  the  infinite  Good,  the  Creator.  In 
other  words,  ideals  divorced  from  God  and  treated  as  ultimates 
are  thereby  transformed  into  idols.  Bernard  Shaw,  regarding 
ideals  as  ends  in  themselves  apart  from  God,  of  Whom  they  are 
partial  aspects  and  to  Whom  they  are  ways,  recognises  this  and 
becomes  an  iconoclast  (except  indeed  for  the  one  remaining  idol 
of  social  democracy).  In  this  attack  on  ideals  he  is  quite  logical. 
Ultimately  and  logically  a man  must  regard  life  from  the  stand- 
point of  one  of  two  Bernards — of  Bernard  Shaw,  who  believes  in 
nothing,2  or  of  St  Bernard,  who  believed  in  God,  in  nothing  apart 
from  God  and  in  everything  in  and  for  God,  and  to  the  extent 
in  which  it  reflects  God  and  leads  to  God.  To  ascribe  absolute 
value  to  a creature,  however  noble,  is  to  make  that  creature  an 
idol,  and  sooner  or  later  idols  are  discovered  to  be  what  they  are — 
lifeless  caricatures  of  the  living  God.  If,  however,  the  created 
ideal  be  regarded  as  a reflection  of  God,  and  a means  to  God,  it  is 
no  longer  an  idol,  but  an  image,  for  it  is  no  longer  regarded  as 

1 For  this  ethical  anarchism,  while  aiming  at  the  transcendence  of  fixed 
ethical  standards,  succeeds  in  effect  but  in  substituting  for  them  a bondage 
within  the  highest  desires  or  loves  realised  by  the  individual  soul.  Since  the 
loves  of  the  majority  are  selfish,  the  more  limited  good  of  individuals  in  this 
life  is  thus  preferred  to  the  wider  good  of  society,  and  to  the  unlimited  good  of 
the  fruition  of  God. 

2 Again  except  socialism.  This  exception  is,  however,  inconsistent  with  his 
own  point  of  view.  It  is  arbitrary  to  overthrow  all  idols  except  one.  Moreover, 
by  nothing  I mean  here — .nothing  of  objective  value  apart  from  the  desire  or 
life  impulse  of  the  subject. 


126  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

something  Divine  in  itself,  but  as  a symbol  of  the  one  true 
God,  to  Whom  it  points  a way.  Against  the  veneration  of 
images  there  is  no  sound  objection,  but  idolatry  stands  self- 
condemned.  The  superficial  resemblance  between  the  two  is 
great,  but  the  reality  is  poles  asunder. 

It  is  not,  of  course,  meant  that  all  natural  experiences  and 
activities  are  equally  remote  from  God,  equally  limited.  Indeed, 
this  is  obviously  untrue.  The  less  limited  their  scope  and  object, 
and  the  more  interior  and  spiritual  the  psychical  operations  in- 
volved, the  nearer  do  they  approach  to  God,  and  the  more  of  His 
Being  they  represent  and  mediate.  Indeed  in  the  higher  activities 
discussed  above  there  is  often  present,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
intuition  of  an  unknown  God  and  an  aspiration  towards  Him. 
But  all  are  ineffectual  and  ultimately  unsatisfactory.  For  the 
limit  is  always  there,  the  centre  of  the  soul  is  never  fully  actuated 
and  the  intuition  of  an  infinite  reality  is  but  a passing  glimpse  of 
an  unattainable  good. 

The  will,  indeed,  always  preserves  its  intrinsic  capacity  for  the 
apprehension  of  an  infinite  good — that  is,  of  God,  because  this  is 
essentially  consequent  on  the  possession  of  a rational  spirit. 
Nevertheless  this  potential  capacity  can  never  be  actualised 
in  the  natural  condition  of  fallen  men — that  is,  in  the  purely 
natural  man  not  elevated  by  sanctifying  grace.  The  lower 
functions  of  the  embodied  soul — dependent  as  it  is  for  knowledge 
on  the  essentially  limited  data  of  sense — bind  the  spirit  within  the 
limits  of  the  creature  and  drag  down  the  will  on  its  upward  course 
to  God.1  Before  the  fall,  as  was  pointed  out  earlier  in  this  chapter, 
this  was  remedied  by  a supernatural  quality  in  man,  superadded 
to  his  natural  gifts  (the  donum  super additurn),  whereby  his  will 
was  so  united  to  God  that  he  was  enabled  to  adhere  to  God  and  to 
be  united  to  Him  with  his  entire  being,  and  that  with  a conscious- 
ness of  his  union.2 3  The  lower  sense-conditioned  knowledge  and 
the  lower  desires  were  in  complete  subordination  to  this  supreme 
activity  of  unitive  love.  This  superadded  quality  was  sanctifying 
grace,  whose  end  is  perfect  union  with  God  and  full  fruition  of  God 
in  the  beatific  vision  and  the  participation  of  the  proper  activity 

1 It  is  also  true  that  even  a disembodied  spirit  is  naturally  incapable  of  sharing 
the  life  of  God  or  of  possessing  the  beatific  vision.  Such  a spirit  would,  however, 

naturally  possess  (except  for  the  consequences  of  sin)  a very  high  fruition  of  God. 

3 I presume  that  in  the  sinless  soul  of  unfallen  man  the  grace  union  with  God 
amounted  to  the  mystical  union  and  was  therefore  conscious. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  127 

of  God  Himself.  It  has,  however,  pleased  the  infinite  mercy  of 
God  to  restore  this  sanctifying  grace  to  vast  numbers  of  the  human 
race.  The  solidarity  of  mankind  indeed  entailed  the  common 
participation  of  all  in  its  loss.  This  was,  however,  remedied  by 
Our  Lord’s  Incarnation  and  Redeeming  death,  which  substituted 
among  His  members  a new  solidarity  with  Himself,  for  that 
solidarity  with  Adam,  which  was  the  ground  of  original  sin. 
Through  this  solidarity  we  partake  of  His  Spirit  through  the 
possession  of  sanctifying  grace.  As  we  have  seen  already,  God  is 
always  substantially  immanent  in  the  soul  and  present  in  special 
manner  to  the  centre.  But  the  barrier  of  the  soul’s  natural  and 
sense-conditioned  activities — indeed,  the  essential  limitation  of  its 
creatureliness — prevented  the  fruition  of  that  Presence.  This 
fundamental  limitation  has  been,  however,  destroyed  by  sanctify- 
ing grace.  Thus  the  supreme  barrier  between  the  soul  and  God, 
indestructible  by  natural  means,  has  been  removed,  so  that,  as 
long  as  the  soul  remains  in  grace  and  its  concomitant  charity 
its  ultimate  fruition  of  God  and  union  with  Him  is  secure.  The 
possession  of  this  restored  grace  has  united  to  God  by  super- 
natural charity  the  ultimate  and  most  fundamental  will,  and 
through  that  will  the  central  ego  or  ground.  In  virtue  of  this  new 
relationship  and  special  union  with  God  of  the  central  self,  God 
indwells  or  inhabits  the  soul  after  a peculiarly  intimate  manner, 
in  which  He  does  not  and  cannot  inhabit  souls  in  the  natural  order 
whose  central  selves  are  bound  fast  within  the  limits  of  their 
creatureliness,  and  in  the  almost  inevitably  consequent  limits  of  a 
will  actually  averse  from  God.1 

But  the  work  of  union  is  only  begun,  the  Divine  indwelling  is 
still  largely  potential.  The  radical  healing  of  the  will  and  its 
radical  union  with  God  release  indeed  the  soul  from  irremediable 
bondage  to  the  limited,  so  that  the  limits  of  its  love  of  creatures 
and  occupation  with  creatures,  above  all,  of  its  essential  limitation 
as  a created  being,  which  is  the  ground  of  all  other  limits,  are  no 
longer  an  insurmountable  barrier  between  it  and  God,  debarring 
it  wholly  from  supernatural  will -uni  on  with  Him  and  rendering 
the  complete  union,  which  is  the  true  end  of  man,  an  intrinsic 
impossibility.  Nevertheless,  the  soul  is  still  actually  occupied 
for  the  most  part  with  the  finite  creature.  Its  activities  are 

1 Still  there  may  be,  and  doubtless  are,  souls  in  a state  of  pure  nature  whose 
will  is  united  to  God  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  limits  of  a creature  not 
elevated  to  the  supernatural  union. 


128  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

extremely  external  and  limited,  being  still  for  the  most  part 
sensible  or  sense-conditioned.  Its  life  is  superficial.  The  soul 
has  not  turned  its  operations  and  its  gaze  inwards  to  the  higher 
faculties  and  their  centre,  where  it  is  united  to  God  immanent. 
Moreover,  the  mainspring  of  its  actions  is  still  some  limited  end, 
usually  selfish — that  is,  something  more  limited  than  its  Divine 
End — the  immediate  pleasure  of  self  as  an  independent  entity,  or 
something  referred  to  that  self  as  its  end.  All  that  habitual  grace 
and  charity  have  done  is  to  subordinate  these  superficial  and  selfish 
volitions  and  occupations  to  a radical  determination  of  the  will 
not  to  defy  and  lose  God  by  mortal  sin  in  order  to  gratify  them. 
Far  other  is  the  goal  to  be  reached — the  perfection  to  which  the 
soul  is  called.  Its  gaze  is  to  be  wholly  fixed  on  God — recollected 
in  Him  from  the  view  of  creatures  except  as  seen  in  Him  as  mani- 
festations and  participations  of  His  Being.  It  is  thus  to  be,  in 
Father  Baker’s  phrase,  wholly  introverted.  The  will  is  to  be  so 
intimately  united  with  God  that  it  wills  nothing  except  for  His 
sake  and  because  He  moves  it  to  that  volition.  It  is  true  that 
each  soul  is  called  to  a different  degree  of  union  in  this  sense,  that 
the  capacity  of  vision  and  will-union  differs  in  every  case,  but  that 
capacity,  be  it  great  or  small,  is  to  be  wholly  occupied  by  God  and 
by  creatures  only  as  in  and  for  Him.  This  goal  is,  of  course,  only 
attained  fully  in  the  beatific  vision.  Mystic  union  is  a stage  on  the 
way— a stage  in  which,  at  its  highest  perfection,  the  perfect  will -union 
is  in  substance  already  accomplished,  and  there  is  a veiled  (not  an 
open)  constant  or  quasi-constant  intuition  of  God’s  presence.1 

Mystical  union  is  essentially  a high  degree  of  sanctifying 
grace,  involving  its  correspondingly  elevated  operation  of  actual 
grace,  which  degree  and  operation  are  normally  manifested  to  the 
consciousness  of  their  possessor,  the  grace  being  the  mystical 
union,  its  conscious  manifestation  the  concomitant  intuition. 
As  we  shall  see  hereafter,  mystical  experience  may  be  divided  into 
transient  operations  and  habitual  states.  The  latter  are  high 
degrees  and  manifestations  of  habitual  or  sanctifying  grace,  the 
former  correspondingly  elevated  operations  of  actual  grace.  The 
loftiest  form  of  mystical  experience,  the  transforming  union 
essentially  consists  of  habit  and  act.  The  habit  of  this  union  is 

1 This  is  the  nature  of  the  transforming  union,  the  highest  degree  of  mystical 
experience.  The  further  discussion  and  explanation  of  this,  as  described  by  St 
J ohn  of  the  Cross  and  the  interpreting  treatises  of  Mother  Cecilia,  will  be  given 
later 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  129 

thus  habitual  grace  in  its  fullest  and  highest  earthly  manifestation 
before  it  passes  into  glory  at  death,  its  act,  the  operation  of  that 
supreme  degree  of  habitual  grace,  is  the  supreme  operation  of  actual 
grace.  Mystical  experience  is  thus  an  essential  constituent  of 
the  economy  of  grace  as  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible  and  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Church,  an  economy  which  may  be  summarised 
as  a progress  of  grace  through  mystical  union  to  glory.1  The  way 
from  sanctifying  grace  to  beatific  glory  is  one  continuous  road  of 
increasing  supernatural  union  between  the  soul  and  God.  Glory, 
the  lumen  glorice,  as  it  is  termed  in  theology,  is  thus  but  sanctifying 
grace  in  its  fully  unfolded  flower — sanctifying  grace  the  germinat- 
ing seed  of  the  lumen  glorice.  The  Mystical  union-intuition  in  its 
various  degrees  is  the  foliage  and  finally  the  opening  bud  of  the 
same  plant.2 

In  stanza  23  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle,  St  John  says : “ It 
is  not  the  betrothal  of  the  Cross  that  I am  speaking  of  now — that 
takes  place,  once  for  all,  when  God  gives  the  first  grace  to  every 
soul  in  baptism,  I am  speaking  of  the  betrothal  in  the  way  of 
perfection,  it  is  a progressive  work.  And  though  both  are  but  one 
yet  there  is  a difference  between  them.  The  latter  is  effected 
in  the  way  of  the  soul  and  therefore  slowly,  the  former  in  the 
way  of  God  and  therefore  at  once.”  Here  St  John  teaches  the 
essential  unity  of  the  way  of  grace.  Only  the  first  step,  he  says, 
is  wholly  God’s  work — to  which  we  can  contribute  nothing — 
for  God  places  us  in  the  state  of  grace  without  any  previous  merit 
on  our  part.  The  perfection,  however,  of  the  supernatural  work, 
begun  without  our  co-operation,  requires  our  co-operation,  and  is, 
therefore,  a gradual  process.  Of  this  gradual  process  the  mystical 
intuition-union  is  an  essential  part — a necessary  stage  of  the 
supernatural  growth  of  the  soul,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  the 
union  is  so — for  the  conscious  element  of  the  union,  the  intuition, 
may  perhaps  in  certain  instances  be  dispensed  with.3  We  have 
seen  that  the  central  depths  of  the  soul  with  the  roots  of  her 
spiritual  functions  are  normally  subliminal.  Subliminal  also  is 
the  ordinary  supernatural  union  of  the  central  ego  and  its  radical 
functions  with  God  through  sanctifying  grace.  The  ordinary 
soul  in  a state  of  grace  has  no  direct  consciousness  of  the  special 

1 CJ.  Scheeben,  Dogmatik,  French  trs.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  542. 

2 For  the  essential  continuity  of  grace  and  glory  see  Fr.  Terrien,  La  Grace  et 
la  Gloire,  vol.  i.,  pp.  99-101. 

3 1.e.  By  a special  dispensation  the  mystic  union  would  remain  entirely  sub- 
liminal— as  are  the  earlier  stages  of  the  union  of  sanctifying  grace. 

1 


130  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

union  with  God  thus  constituted.1  Only  at  a certain  stage  of  this 
grace-union  does  the  Divine  Presence  and  Operation  in  the  central 
depths  emerge  with  and  through  these  into  consciousness.  The 
process  of  grace-union  in  the  mystics  is  therefore  from  ordinary 
subliminal  grace-union,  through  the  conscious  union-intuition  of 
mystical  experience— to  the  beatific  union  and  open  vision  of 
heaven.  In  the  case  of  ordinary  souls — that  is,  of  the  vast  majority 
—the  second  stage  is  absent,  and  is  replaced  by  purgatory. 

There  is  thus  but  one  and  the  same  way  by  which  all  the 
saved  must  reach  the  fulness  of  Divine  Union,  one  and  the  same 
progressive  union  of  love  through  the  operation  of  one  and  the 
same  indwelling  Spirit,  a union  which  when  it  has  reached  a 
certain  stage  is  the  mystical  union,  normally  revealed  to  con- 
sciousness in  mystical  intuition.  The  superficial  diversity  be- 
tween the  spiritual  experience  of  different  souls  only  emphasises 
the  underlying  unity  of  the  path  to  God.  The  general  principles 
of  the  way  from  ordinary  grace  to  glory  through  mystical  union 
or  purgatory  are  identical  for  every  soul  that  shall  be  saved. 
Far  greater  is  the  fundamental  identity  of  the  way  of  grace  in 
the  case  of  those  who  enjoy  on  earth  mystical  union.  For  all  the 
mystics  the  chief  stages  or  degrees  of  the  Godward  ascent  are  the 
same.  There  is  but  one  summit  to  which  the  diverse  ways  of 
the  spirit  lead,  and  they  pass  through  the  same  zones.  Though  the 
mount  of  perfection  may  be  climbed  in  this  life  by  innumerable 
paths,  they  all  begin  in  the  tropical  zone  of  vocal  prayer  and 
sensible  sweetness,  pass  on  through  the  temperate  zone  wherein 
lie  the  quiet  pastures  of  affective  prayer,2  traverse  the  shady  forest 
of  infused  contemplation,  simple,  loving  and  obscure,  wind 
upwards  across  the  barren  soil  and  among  the  stern  crags  of  the 
mystical  desolation,  until  they  reach  finally  the  summit,  clad  in 
the  perpetual  snow  of  absolute  purity,  where  there  is  nothing  to 
impede  the  traveller’s  vision  of  the  boundless  firmament  of  the 
Triune  Godhead. 

But  I feel  that  the  reader  must  be  rushing  forward  with 
objections — objections  which  are,  I think,  reducible  to  two — a 

1 Even  the  mystic  below  the  final  union  of  spiritual  marriage,  though  conscious 
of  the  Divine  union  through  grace,  cannot  be  more  than  morally  certain  that  he 
is  in  a state  of  grace,  for  the  experience  might  be  a purely  transitory  union  effected, 
so  to  speak,  from  without  by  actual  grace  alone.  Still  he  is  morally  sure  that  it 
is  more  than  this. 

2 Usually  this  prayer  is  reached  by  way  of  discursive  meditation.  This  may, 
however,  be  replaced  by  a more  affective  continuance  of  vocal  prayer. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  131 

lesser  and  a greater.  I will  take  the  lesser  first.  It  may  be  urged 
that  there  is  no  uniform  road  to  the  Divine  union.  Are  not  all 
souls  different  ? Do  not  the  various  stages  of  prayer  occur  in 
varying  order  ? Did  not,  for  example,  St  Teresa  experience  the 
prayer  of  quiet  at  the  very  commencement  of  her  religious  life, 
before  she  had  yet  acquired  the  habit  of  meditation  ? But  I 
have  already  admitted  this  obvious  diversity  of  spiritual  life 
between  soul  and  soul.  St  John  of  the  Cross  fully  recognises  that 
every  soul  is  led  by  a different  path.  “ Devout  souls,”  he  tells  us, 
“ run  in  many  ways  and  in  various  directions,  each  according 
to  the  spirit  which  God  bestows,  and  the  vocation  which  He  has 
given,  in  the  diversified  forms  of  spiritual  service  on  the  road 
of  everlasting  life,  which  is  evangelical  perfection,  where  they 
meet  the  Beloved  in  the  union  of  love,  after  spiritual  detachment 
from  all  things  ” ( Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  25).  Indeed,  in  The 
Living  Flame  of  Love,  he  even  says  : “ God  raises  every  soul 
by  different  paths.  Scarcely  shall  you  find  one  soul  that  in 
half  its  way  agrees  with  that  of  another  ” ( Living  Flame,  st. 
3,  § 12).  This  variety,  however,  does  not  involve  a fundamental 
divergency.  The  many  ways  lie  along  one  “ road  of  evangelical 
perfection  ” ; the  road  of  “ spiritual  detachment  ” and  con- 
sequent “ union  of  love.”  There  may  be  many  paths  by  which  a 
peak  in  the  Andes  may  be  climbed — yet  all  will  lead  from  zone 
to  zone  in  due  order — from  the  tropical  zone  of  the  valley  to  the 
Arctic  zone  of  perpetual  snow.  That  the  zones  of  the  spiritual 
ascent  are  not  entered  and  left  at  the  same  point  does  not  in- 
validate this  fundamental  principle.  All  paths  up  a mountain 
do  not  ascend  as  high  in  an  equal  distance.  If  the  path  is  steep, 
the  ascent  is  very  rapid.  If  it  winds  much,  or  lies  along  a gradual 
slope,  it  takes  a long  journey  to  ascend  an  equal  height.  Natural 
temperament  enables  some  souls  to  follow  God’s  grace  by  a more 
direct  way  to  contemplation,  or  to  fuller  union,  than  that  taken  by 
others  whose  radical  will  is  as  good  as,  perhaps  better  than,  their 
own.  Some  souls  have  fewer  obstacles  than  others  to  overcome 
and  can  reach  full  union  with  a lesser  degree  of  passive  purgation, 
or  after  a shorter  stay  in  all  or  certain  of  the  intermediate  stages 
of  the  way,  than  is  necessary  for  other  souls.  Moreover  the 
zones  of  the  spiritual  life  are  no  more  sharply  severed  than  are 
the  zones  of  the  mountain  ascent.  One  zone  passes  gradually, 
often  imperceptibly,  into  another.  The  zones  are  not  regularly 
marked  off  at  certain  altitudes,  as  if  drawn  by  compasses.  At 


132  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

particular  places,  owing  to  some  local  accident,  one  zone  may 
push  into  another  and  continue  at  an  altitude  chiefly  occupied  by 
a higher  zone,  or  a higher  zone  may  occur  at  an  altitude  chiefly 
occupied  by  a lower  zone.  If  his  path  lie  in  that  direction,  the 
traveller’s  stay  in  a particular  zone  is  unusually  long  or  unusually 
short.  So  is  it  with  the  degrees  of  mystical  prayer  union.  More- 
over, in  the  spiritual  life,  God  the  all-powerful  dispenser  of  His 
graces  may,  by  anticipation,  raise  a soul  temporarily  into  a higher 
zone  of  mystical  intuition  or  contemplation  than  corresponds  with 
its  degree  of  will-union.  In  other  words,  a peculiar  actual  grace 
places  the  soul,  so  to  speak,  externally,  above  its  state  of  sanctify- 
ing grace.  This  would  seem  to  have  been  the  case  with  St  Teresa’s 
first  prayer  of  quiet.  Such  also  I believe  to  be  the  explanation 
of  the  special  illuminations,  occasionally  even  ecstasies,  that  often 
accompany  the  first  entrance  into  the  mystical  way,  graces  of 
prayer  far  in  excess  of  the  soul’s  degree  of  grace-union.  We  must 
also  bear  in  mind  that  the  souls  in  heaven  do  not  possess  equal 
degrees  of  glory,  because  their  sanctifying  grace  is  unequal.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  grace  does  not  become  openly  manifest 
as  beatific  glory  at  one  and  the  same  degree  in  all  souls — unlike, 
e.g.,  water  which  always  boils  at  one  and  the  same  degree  of  heat 
and  barometric  pressure.  But  it  follows  from  this  that  the  veiled 
manifestation  of  the  life  of  grace,  which  is  mystical  experience, 
does  not  presuppose  an  identical  degree  of  sanctifying  grace, 
in  all  who  first  receive  this  experience.  In  other  words,  union 
does  not  become  conscious  as  intuition  at  one  and  the  same  degree 
in  every  soul.  The  occurrence  of  mystical  experience,  though 
not  arbitrary,  but  the  manifestation  of  grace  in  a particular  soul 
at  a particular  degree,  presupposes  different  degrees  of  grace  in 
different  souls.  It  is  like  the  line  of  perpetual  snow  which  occurs 
at  different  altitudes  in  different  climates. 

Now,  however,  I have  to  face  the  greater  difficulty,  a difficulty 
divided  into  two  heads.  Have  not  souls  reached  the  perfection 
of  canonised  sanctity  without  mystical  graces  ? Are  not  the 
majority  of  souls  who  are  saved,  saved  without  passing  through 
the  stages  of  the  mystical  union  ? How  then  can  it  be  maintained 
that  these  stages  of  mystical  union  are  the  necessary  path  of 
sanctifying  grace  on  its  way  to  glory ; the  one  way  by  which 
all  must  reach  the  beatific  vision  ? To  the  second  objection  I am 
but  partially  open.  For  I confined  the  progressive  order  of  zones 
to  the  ascent  of  perfection  in  this  life.  When  perfection  is  not 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  133 

attained  in  this  life  the  zones  of  prayer  union  omitted  on  earth 
are  not  simply  supplied  beyond  the  grave.  The}"  are  indeed 
traversed  aft<  r death  in  the  substance  of  their  progressive  will- 
union  and  progressive  detachment  from  the  limits  of  the  creature. 
This  substantia]  identity  is,  however,  presented  under  a diverse 
form.  The  same  work  is  effected  by  partially  different  means. 
Nevertheless,  I do  maintain  the  substantial  identity  of  the  way 
of  perfection  whether  in  this  life  or  in  the  next,  the  one  indis- 
pensable ascent  from  the  hidden  life  of  sanctifying  grace  through 
the  mystic  purgation  and  union,  ever  substantially  the  same,  to 
the  beatific  vision.  In  so  far,  however,  as  I am  thus  open  to  the 
objection  that  salvation  is  attained  by  the  majority  of  the  saved 
without  the  mystical  union,  I have  already  answered  that  objection 
by  saying  that  purgatory  is  the  equivalent  of  that  union.  For 
purgatory  is  essentially  the  mystical  purification  of  the  will  from 
adherence  to  the  finite,  which  with  the  mystics  takes  place  more 
or  less  perfectly  in  this  life  in  certain  negative  stages  of  the  mys- 
tical union.  It  is,  indeed,  true  that  sanctifying  grace  does  not 
positively  increase  by  the  post-mortem  purification,  as  it  does  in 
the  purification  of  this  life.  Therefore  it  is  that  souls  who  have 
had  their  purgatory  here  possess  a higher  degree  of  sanctifying 
grace  and,  therefore,  of  heavenly  glory,  than  those  purged  after 
death,  where  there  is  no  more  temptation  and  therefore  no  more 
merit.  But  the  purification  itself  is  essentially  the  same.1 2  How 
this  is  the  case  I will  discuss  at  length  when  I speak  in  detail  of 
the  nights  of  the  soul.  Moreover,  the  supreme  degree  of  mystic 
union,  the  spiritual  marriage,  is,  as  we  shall  see,  but  a foretaste 
on  earth  of  the  beatific  vision,  and  to  the  overwhelming  majority, 
including  the  majority  of  mystics,  who  have  never  reached  it, 
it  is  given  eminently  in  that  vision.  Thus  must  all  who  are  saved 
tread  the  mystic  way  to  union,  the  few  here,  the  many  hereafter. 
The  mystics  are  but  the  advance  guard  of  the  army  of  the  elect. 
They  are  the  spies  who  have  gone  on  ahead  and  entered  before 
death  the  promised  land,  to  report  somewhat  of  its  bliss  to  their 
fellow-travellers  in  the  desert.  For  proof  of  their  journey  and 
vision  they  bring  us  back  a cluster  of  grapes  such  as  never  grew 
in  the  vineyards  of  Egypt. 

1 To  avoid  misunderstanding  I would  point  out  that  both  death  itself  and  the 
vision  of  God  in  the  particular  judgment  must  be  regarded  as  essential  elements 
of  purgatory  if  it  be  thus  identified  with  the  mystical  purgatory  of  earth. 

2 See  Chapter  XI.,  passim. 


134  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

A certain  modification  ol'  this  statement  is  clearly  required 
in  the  case  of  baptized  infants,  indeed  of  all  who  have  not  attained 
before  death  the  full  use  of  reason.  These  souls  are  not  at  all, 
or  but  little,  bound  by  the  limits  of  a will-activity  deliberately 
anti -supernatural  and  self-principled,  averse  from  God  and  unduly 
converted  to  creatures.  This  however  it  is  that  requires  the 
painful  purgation.  Therefore  none  or  little  purgation  of  this  kind 
must  be  endured  by  such  souls  after  death.  Must  we  therefore 
conclude  that  the  mystic  way,  in  its  character  of  a gradual  removal 
of  limits,  will  be  wanting.  Does  a baby  behold  God’s  open  vision 
the  moment  it  passes  from  this  life  ? I should  myself  be  inclined 
to  conjecture  that  such  a soul  will  be  exalted  to  that  vision  without 
pain,  by  a gradual  unveiling  of  God  with  a concomitant  removal 
of  limits,  attaining,  for  example,  the  knowledge  and  vision  of 
Christ  in  His  humanity  before  passing  on  to  the  vision  of  the 
Unlimited  Godhead  and  to  the  unlimited  life  in  Him.  If  this  be 
the  case,  my  principle  will  hold  good  even  of  these  souls  although 
in  a greatly  modified  form.  I confine  myself,  however,  in  this 
discussion  to  the  case  of  adult  souls  enjoying  the  complete  use  of 
reason  and  speak  solely  of  these,  whose  psychology  is  in  some 
degree  open  to  our  understanding. 

Since  the  mystic  experience  and  way  is  thus  a manifestation 
in  this  life  of  the  principles  which  determine  and  constitute  the 
condition  of  the  saved  after  death,  the  study  of  mysticism  should 
be  of  engrossing  interest  to  every  Christian  soul.  Since  life  is  so 
short  and  death  so  certain,  we  cannot  but  long  for  some  knowledge 
of  the  life  to  come,  beyond  the  bare  statement  of  the  revealed 
truth.  Or  rather,  we  cannot  but  desire  to  attach  some  fuller  and 
more  concrete  significance  to  the  brief  eschatological  definitions 
of  the  Church.  We  cannot  take  at  its  surface  value  the  corporeal 
imagery  of  Scripture  and  religious  art.  In  fact,  the  educated 
modem  Catholic  finds  this  imagery  far  less  helpful  than  his  fore- 
fathers seem  to  have  found  it.  The  conventional  pictures  of 
purgatory  as  a crowd  of  nude  persons  in  a blast  furnace,  and  of 
heaven  as  an  assembly  of  white-robed  persons  seated  on  clouds 
and  engaged  in  a perpetual  sacred  concert,1  though  consecrated  by 


1 I do  not  mean  to  mock  at  these  pictures,  as  artistic  symbols,  if  they  are  de- 
picted in  sufficiently  good  taste,  which  indeed  they  never  are  in  modern  religious 
art,  but  only  to  consider  their  appearance  to  one  who  is  not  quite  sure  how  far 
the  Church  intends  them  as  a true  representation  of  purgatory  and  heaven,  and 
who,  regarding  them  as  such,  is  justly  irritated  and  amused. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  185 

traditional  symbolism,  are  altogether  inadequate  for  our  meditation. 
In  fact  such  picturing,  if  taken  seriously,  is  in  danger  of  causing 
a sense  of  unreality,  and  hence  a feeling,  if  no  more,  of  scepticism 
in  regard  to  the  life  beyond  the  grave.  Nothing  is  more  helpful 
to  rid  us  of  such  feelings  than  the  knowledge  that  purgatory  and 
heaven,  especially  the  former,  are  not  states  wholly  without 
analogue  in  this  life.  To  know,  for  example,  that  St  Catherine 
of  Genoa  while  living  and  working  in  our  human  body,  eating, 
drinking,  sleeping  and  tending  the  sick,  in  a particular  city  many 
of  us  have  seen,  at  a particular  epoch  of  history  of  which  all  may 
read  in  the  most  prosaic  history,  experienced  in  its  essential 
character  the  state  of  purgatory,  and  that  St  Teresa,  also  a human, 
indeed  a very  human,  person,  living  in  a Spanish  convent  about  a 
century  later,  by  entering  into  the  mystical  marriage,  enjoyed, 
under  a veil,  that  eternal  union  and  fruition  of  God,  which,  unveiled, 
is  heaven — renders  purgatory  and  heaven  realities,  as  they  could 
never  have  been  before. 

The  objector,  however,  will  now  fall  back  on  the  first  part  of 
the  greater  objection  and  will  say : “ According  to  you  every 
canonised  saint  must  have  reached  in  this  life  the  state  of  mystical 
marriage,  that  supreme  state  of  union  which  you  say  follows  the 
endurance  of  purgatory  on  earth.  How  then  is  it  that  there 
have  been  canonised  saints  who  never  enjoyed  mystical  prayer 
at  all  ? ” Pete  Poulain,  in  his  important  text-book  of  mystical 
theology,  Les  Graces  d'Oraison,  maintains  that  almost  all  the 
canonised  saints — apart  from  the  martyrs — enjoyed  mystical 
prayer,  and  in  this  judgment  he  follows  Pope  Benedict  XIV. 
He  also  proves  that  this  was  so  in  the  case  of  certain  saints  whose 
prayer  is  popularly  supposed  to  have  been  ordinary.  Therefore 
I should  myself  conclude  from  this  weight  of  historical  evidence 
that  there  is  nothing  to  disprove  the  essentiality  and  the 
necessity  of  mystical  union.  Hence  these  saints  whose  inner 
life  is  unknown  may  be  presumed  also  to  have  been  mystics, 
and  thus  all  canonised  saints  other  than  martyrs  have  been 
mystics.  As  for  the  martyrs,  who  have  not  previously  attained 
heroic  sanctity,  was  not  their  martyrdom  itself  their  self-destroying 
purgation,  especially  if  it  was  accompanied  or  preluded  by  interior 
desolation  ? Moreover  we  may  suspect  that  in  a great  many 
cases  the  martyrs,  having  once  sacrificed  themselves  wholly  for 
God  by  offering  themselves  to  die,  and  having  thus  entirely 
detached  their  will  from  the  limited,  received  in  return  the  mystical 


136  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

union  intuition  of  God.  If  the  life  of  any  saint  in  the  calendar 
might  seem  to  have  been  active  rather  than  contemplative,  full 
of  reasoning  and  images,  and  thus  very  unmystical  indeed,  it  would 
be  the  life  of  Blessed  Thomas  More.  Yet  he  in  early  life  had  a 
great  longing — which  never  entirely  left  him — for  the  Carthusian 
life,  and  when  imprisoned  in  the  solitary  confinement  of  the  Tower 
he  told  his  daughter : “ Methinketh  God  maketh  me  a wanton 
[i.e.  a spoiled  child]  and  setteth  me  on  His  lap  and  dandleth  me  ” 
(Bridgett,  Life  of  Sir  T.  More,  p.  367).  If  this  saying  be  not  an 
allusion  to  mystical  experience,  I do  not  know  what  it  can  mean. 
Nevertheless  it  cannot  be  plausibly  maintained  that  all  the  saints 
have  passed  through  the  full  purgation  of  the  second  night  and 
reached  mystical  marriage.  To  this  difficulty  I reply  with  a 
question.  Did  all  the  canonised  saints  reach  heaven  directly 
without  any  passage  through  purgatory  ? We  know  by  the 
infallible  teaching  of  the  Church  that  when  beatified  they  are 
already  in  heaven.  Can  we  say  more  than  that  ? Certainly 
St  Ambrose  held  that  every  soul  passes  through  a purgatorial  fire 
before  entering  heaven,1  and  although  we  cannot  adopt  this 
extreme  position,  we  may,  I think,  hold  it  true  of  saints  who  have 
not  in  this  life  passed  through  the  second  night. 

Neither  need  we  be  disturbed  by  the  statement  in  the  seventh 
colloquy  of  The  Thorns  of  the  Spirit,  a treatise  written  possibly 
by  St  John  of  the  Cross  himself,  that  some  souls  are  led  all  their 
life  long  to  God  by  vocal  prayer  and  through  vocal  prayer  attain 
perfection  and  will-union.  For  I gather  from  the  context  that 
such  vocal  piaver  is  so  full  of  aspirations  as  to  be  in  truth  a form 
of  affective  prayer,  a simple  contemplation.  In  fact,  their  vocal 
prayer  becomes  in  the  end  a vehicle  of  mystical  prayer-union. 
It  is  a question  here  of  the  machinery  rather  than  of  the  substance 
of  prayer. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  those  souls  alone  whom 
God  will  raise  to  a high  degree  of  beatific  glory  are  effectively 
called  to  perfection  here  on  earth.  Countless  souls  have  grace  to 
see  and  reject  fully  deliberate  sins,  who  are  left  without  light  in  a 
life  full  of  imperfections,  to  be  purged  hereafter.  Such  will  reach 
their  lower  goal  in  the  end,  and  were  never  intended  for  a higher 
one.  The  only  real  evil  and  loss  is  the  deliberate  refusal  to  corre- 

1 P6re  Tixeront,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  vol.  ii.,  p.  345.  Saint  Ambrose,  however 
seems  to  have  admitted  in  another  place  that  certain  perfect  souls  would  find  in 
this  fire  refreshment  rather  than  pain. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  137 

spond  with  light  given,  grace  received,  perfection  proposed.  Even 
among  those  called  to  aim  at  perfection,  there  is  an  indefinite 
difference  of  degree  according  to  the  capacity  of  each.  Of  these 
latter  St  John  of  the  Cross  ( The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Bk.  II., 
chap,  v.)  says  : “ Though  certain  souls  in  this  life  enjoy  equal 
peace  and  tranquillity  in  their  state  of  perfection,  everyone  being 
satisfied,  nevertheless  some  of  them  may  be  more  advanced  than 
the  rest,  in  a higher  degree  of  union,  and  yet  all  equally  satisfied 
because  their  capacity  is  satisfied.  But  that  soul  which  does  not 
attain  to  that  degree  of  purity  corresponding  with  its  capacity 
(which  I take  to  mean  the  complete  abandonment  of  its  will  to  do 
the  will  of  God  as  far  as  it  perceives  that  will)  will  never  attain 
true  peace  and  contentment.”  In  the  opening  chapter  of  Book  II. 
of  The  Obscure  Night,  St  John  speaks  of  a proportion  between  the 
purgation  of  the  soul  and  the  degree  of  love  (will-union)  to  which 
it  is  to  be  raised.  Whether  in  his  opinion  souls  raised  to  inferior 
degrees  of  love  will  have  a further  purgatory  to  undergo  after 
death  is  not  clear.  I should  be  inclined  to  the  view  that  however 
low  a degree  of  glory  be  predestined  to  any  soul,  if  that  soul 
wholly  submits  its  will  to  God’s  known  will  without  voluntary 
imperfection,  its  purgation  is  complete.  It  is  ready  to  be  filled  by 
God  according  to  its  utmost  capacity,  however  scant.  Such  a 
constant  obedience  to  the  Divine  will  would,  however,  involve  an 
earthly  purgatory  of  detachment,  and  thus  the  mystical  purgation, 
at  least  in  a milder  form.  It  would  also  leave  that  soul  at  death 
in  achieved  perfection — in  fact,  a saint,  however  unsuited  for 
canonisation.  Souls,  however,  who  have  not  seriously  aimed  at 
perfection,  though  perhaps  they  never  received  a call  to  it,  and  are 
therefore  exculpated  by  ignorance,  must  in  reality  fall  constantly 
into  voluntary  resistance  to  God’s  known  will  in  matters  not  com- 
manded under  pain  of  grave  sin.  Such  souls  would  require  a 
purgatory  after  death.1 

We  must  observe  also  that  the  essential  matter  is  not  the  con- 
scious fruition  of  mystical  marriage  but  the  completion  of  the 
purgation,  the  perfect  detachment  of  the  will  from  limits  by  union 
with  the  Unlimited  Godhead.  The  proposition  which  I maintain 
amounts,  therefore,  to  this,  that  before  a soul  enters  heaven  it  must 
have  passed  through  a complete  purgation  from  all  selfish  attach- 
ment to  the  finite,  to  creatures — a proposition  which,  far  from 
being  doubtful,  is  of  faith.  This  complete  purgation  involves, 

1 For  a further  discussion,  see  Chapter  XI. 


138  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

however,  either  a purgatorial  detachment  and  desolation  on  earth 
01  a martyrdom  such  that  it  is  its  equivalent,  or  an  equivalent 
purgatory  after  death.  But  this  earthly  purgation  is,  as  we  shall 
see,  a mystical  state — a special  manifestation  of  grace  at  a certain 
stage  on  the  way  to  glory.  In  it,  however,  the  soul  is  not  directly 
conscious  of  the  Presence  and  Action  of  God.  Were  it  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  purgation.  Therefore  it  is  clear  that  the 
essential  and  indispensable  element  of  mystical  union,. as  the  way 
to  beatific  vision,  is  not  the  consciousness  of  God  as  the  object  of 
union  but  the  union  itself.  This  union,  when  it  reaches  a certain 
stage,  is  usually  conscious  when  fully  actualised,  although  not 
directly  so  in  the  desolations.  Therefore  the  normal  order,  I 
should  be  inclined  to  think,  the  universal  order,  is  that  no  soul 
reaches  the  second  night  or  the  full  mystic  purgatory  without 
previous  conscious  union  with  God  in  the  lower  stages  of  mystical 
prayer.  This  consciousness,  however,  is  not  the  essential  part  of 
the  mystical  union  and,  even  if  He  has  not  actually  done  so,  God 
could  dispense  with  it.  However  this  may  be,  we  must  be  quite 
clear  that  the  psycho-physical  phenomena  normally  attendant  on 
the  earlier  stages  of  mystical  prayer  are  in  no  sense  essential,  and 
may  indeed  be  completely  absent.  As  for  visions  and  revelations, 
these,  as  we  shall  see,  constitute  no  intrinsic  part  whatever  of  the 
mystical  union.  They  are  purely  adventitious  graces,  either 
given  for  the  benefit  of  others  or,  as  it  were,  ornamental  concomit- 
ants of  the  mystical  prayer-union  itself.  But  the  gradually  in- 
creasing will-union  supernaturally  infused,  with  its  correspondent 
decrease  and  destruction  of  will  attachment  to  the  finite,  is  the 
one  intrinsically  necessary  road  to  the  beatific  vision  in  every 
soul  that  is  saved.  As  the  limits  of  our  natural  and  selfish 
attachments  and  activities  are  progressively  destroyed  by  the 
process  of  purgation,  the  Divine  Action  in  the  soul  and  God’s  in- 
dwelling Presence  in  and  through  that  Action  increases  with  the 
increase  of  sanctifying  grace  whose  function  it  is  to  remove  the 
limits  of  nature  and  sin  and  so  to  unite  the  soul  in  special  union 
with  God.  Thus  does  the  Action  of  God  in  the  soul  through  grace 
increase  and  the  natural  self-principled  activity  of  the  soul  pro- 
portionately decrease.  When  this  process  is  completed  and  all 
limits  have  been  destroyed,  God  through  grace  wholly  possesses 
and  moves  the  soul.  When  the  soul  is  thus  wholly  possessed  and 
moved  by  God,  the  purgation  is  ended  and  the  beatific  vision  is 
reached,  or  at  least  its  earthly  foretaste,  the  mystical  marriage. 


RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  SOUL  AND  GOD  139 

Mystical  union  (involving  normally  the  consciousness  of  it)  is 
therefore  not  an  extraordinary  grace  beside  the  ordinary  way  to 
God,  but  an  essential  stage  of  that  way.  The  only  extraordinary 
characteristic  of  this  mystical  union  and  concomitant  purgation  is 
that  it  is  given  in  this  life,  instead  of  in  the  next,  when  the  vast 
majority  of  the  elect  will  attain  to  it.  A progressive  supernatural 
union  with  God,  begun  in  the  first  regeneration  to  the  life  of  grace,1 
continued  in  the  growth  of  that  supernatural  life,  a growth  hidden 
at  first,  later  made  manifest  in  mystical  purgation  and  union, 
whether  here  in  this  life  or  beyond  the  grave,  completed  at  last  in 
the  beatific  vision  of  heaven — this  is  the  common  substance  of  the 
Christian  life  and  of  the  mystic  way,  the  fundamental  principle, 
alike  of  Christianity  2 and  of  mysticism. 

1 Normally  effected  in  baptism. 

2 Equally  fundamental  to  Christianity  is,  of  course,  the  accomplishment  of 
this  grace-union  by  incorporation  into  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  the  Incarnate 
Word  of  God,  an  incorporation  effected  by  the  indwelling  of  His  Holy  Spirit. 


CHAPTER  VI 

VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY 


Twelve  Aspects  or  Characters  of  the  Mystic  Way 

(1)  Emancipation  from  Limits. — I ascend  to  my  Father  and  to  your 

Father,  to  my  God  and  to  your  God.  I will  come  again  and 
will  receive  you  to  myself  that  where  I am  you  also  may  be. 

(2)  Conversion  from  Creatures  to  God. — Every  one  that  hath  left 

house  or  brethren  or  sisters  or  father  or  mother  or  lands  for 
my  name’s  sake  shall  receive  a hundredfold  and  life  ever- 
lasting. Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit : for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

(3)  Introversion. — When  thou  shalt  pray,  having  shut  the  door,  pray 

to  thy  Father  in  secret.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you. 

(4)  Detachment  from  Self. — If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him 

deny  himself.  For  he  that  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it, 
and  he  that  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it. 

(5)  Conversion  from  Matter  to  Spirit. — That  which  is  born  of  the 

flesh  is  flesh : and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. 
The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  adorers  shall 
adore  the  Father  in  spirit.  God  is  a spirit,  and  they  that 
adore  him,  must  adore  him  in  spirit. 

(6)  Increase  of  Delicacy  or  Subtlety. — Be  ye  wise  as  serpents  and 

simple  as  doves.  Blessed  are  the  eyes  that  see  the  things 
that  you  see.  Think  not  that  I am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets  ; I am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil. 
For  I tell  you  that  unless  your  justice  exceed  that  of  the 
scribes,  you  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

(7)  Liberation. — You  shall  know  the  truth  and  the  truth  shall 

make  you  free.  The  Spirit  breatheth  where  he  will.  So 
is  everyone  born  of  the  Spirit. 

(8)  Unification. — Martha,  Martha,  thou  art  careful  and  art  troubled 

about  many  things.  But  one  thing  is  necessary. 

(9)  Purification. — Blessed  are  the  clean  of  heart  for  they  shall  see 

God.  Now,  you  are  clean  by  reason  of  the  word  that  I 
have  spoken  to  you. 

140 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  141 

(10)  The  Attainment  of  Peace. — Peace  I leave  with  you,  My  peace  I 

give  unto  you.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  me 
and  you  shall  find  rest  to  your  souls. 

(11)  Will  Identification  with  the  Will  of  God. — I came  not  to  do 

my  own  will  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.  Thv  will 
be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.  Not  as  I will  but 
as  Thou  wilt. 

(12)  Progressive  Attainment  of  Reality. — Not  by  bread  alone  man 

lives.  Labour  not  for  the  meat  that  perisheth,  but  for  that 
which  endureth  unto  life  everlasting.  I am  the  bread  of 
life.  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread. 

The  ever-increasing  and  in  its  later  stages  more  or  less  conscious 
will-union  with  God  affected  positively  by  the  increase  of  sancti- 
fying grace  and  negatively  by  the  gradual  destruction  of  all  limits 
within  which  the  will  and  understanding  are  by  their  natural 
operation  bound,  the  soul’s  escape  “from  every  limit  of  nature 
and  reason  ” 1 in  its  union  with  the  Unlimited  Godhead,  may,  as 
I remarked  at  the  outset  of  this  book,  be  regarded  from  various 
points  of  view.  A few  of  these  general  aspects  I will  now  discuss 
before  dealing  in  detail  with  the  chief  stages  of  the  mystic  way  as 
explained  by  St  John  of  the  Cross. 

(1)  Emancipation  from  Limits. 

All  the  various  aspects  of  the  mystical  way  are  grounded  in 
its  fundamental  character  as  the  way  from  the  limited  to  the 
unlimited  or  infinite,  a gradual  emancipation  from  limits.  Each 
separate  aspect  is  simply  an  aspect  or  result  of  that  escape  from 
the  limited  to  the  unlimited.  That  fundamental  character  has 
already  been  discussed.  We  have  seen  how  the  soul  of  man  by 
its  reason  and  rationally  directed  will  has  a natural  capacity  for 
the  infinite,  even  a certain  need  of  the  infinite  and  consequent 
aspiration  thereafter.2  This  capacity  was  fulfilled  by  his  first 
supernatural  union  with  God,  an  elevation  which  more  than 
satisfied  the  natural  need  and  aspiration  of  the  soul.  Sin 
and  its  results  have,  however,  confined  man  within  the  limits 
of  creatures — as  the  ends  of  his  will  and  the  conditions  of  his 
understanding.  These  limits  must  be  and  by  grace  are,  and  by 
grace  alone  can  be,  transcended.  Thus  the  life  of  grace  is  a gradual 

1 Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  Book  II.,  Introductory  Chapter. 

2 It  has  an  exigency  for  a certain  union  with  and  knowledge  of  the  Infinite 
God,  though  not  for  the  beatific  vision  and  union. 


142  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

escape  from  limits.  Hence  the  mystical  union-intuition  in  which 
that  life  issues  is  this  emancipation  in  an  enormously  higher  degree. 
This  freedom  from  limits  by  full  union  with  the  Unlimited  is  often 
spoken  of  by  St  John  and  Mother  Cecilia  as  an  immensity. 

But  a difficulty  must  now  be  faced.  It  will  be  asked  : “ Is  not 
such  a progress  essentially  impossible  to  the  created  soul  of  man  ? 
How  can  a creature  which  is  as  such  essentially  limited  escape  all 
limits  ? ” The  answer  is  that  man’s  reason  and  rational  will 
enable  him  to  apprehend  the  existence  of  an  unlimited  good,  and 
to  strive  after  its  attainment.  The  centre  essentially  possessed  of 
this  direction  towards,  and  capacity  fot  unlimited  good,  is  thereby 
in  an  especial  sense  grounded  in  the  Divine  Being.  This  capacity 
and  the  grounding  in  God  that  is  its  cause  endows  the  soul  with 
a certain  potential  infinity.  “ The  heart,”  says  Mother  Cecilia, 
“ by  which  I mean  the  root  of  the  will  or  the  essence  of  the  soul 
was  created  by  God  in  His  image  and  likeness.  It  possesses  in 
consequence  an  immensity  so  profound  that  it  is  like  a sea  or 
bottomless  well,  wherein  the  deeper  we  plunge  the  less  do  we  find 
bottom,  and  this  immensity  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  soul  is 
grounded  and  lives  in  the  very  life  and  essence  of  its  Creator  ” 
{Transformation  of  Soul,  st.  1).  “ The  soul,  though  clothed 

in  a veil  of  miserable,  mortal  flesh,  possesses  in  itself  an  immense 
centre,  containing  infinite  riches  and  glory.  In  this  divine  centre 
we  are  like  God  and  nothing  can  fully  satisfy  it  save  God  Himself  ” 
{Transformation,  st.  4).  This  centre  is,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  the  root  of  the  will  and  it  is  as  such  that  it  is  thus  unlimited. 
“ The  will,”  says  the  writer  of  The  Obscure  Knowledge  of  God,  “ goes 
out  of  itself  and  is  transformed  into  the  object  of  its  love,  so  as  to 
become  one  thing  with  that  object,  and  therefore  it  does  not  limit 
that  object  ” (chap.  x).  St  John  of  the  Cross  speaks  of  this 
potential  infinity  of  the  soul  when  he  says,  in  The  Living  Flame, 
st.  3 : “ The  capacity  of  these  caverns  ” — the  powers  of  the 
soul — “ is  profound  because  the  object  of  which  they  are  capable, 
namely  God,  is  profound  and  infinite.  Hence  the  capacity  of  the 
soul  is,  in  a certain  sense,  infinite,  and  its  hunger  profound  and 
infinite.”  When  the  union  with  God  is  complete,  the  soul  is  at 
once  finite  and  infinite.  “ God,”  says  Mother  Cecilia,  “ has  willed 
to  communicate  His  Divine  Being  in  such  wise  that  His  creatures 
are  able  to  receive  Him  without  limit,  though  not  with  the  measure 
of  His  immensity  as  He  knows  it  in  Himself  alone.”  “ Blessed  is 
the  soul  that  possesses  in  itself  the  immensity  of  God  through 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  143 

participation  and  union  with  Him.”  Though  still  indeed  finite 
in  its  own  essence,  it  is  infinite  in  its  eternal  participation  of  the 
Unlimited,  in  its  union  with  God.  It  is  like  a vessel  closed  at 
the  bottom  and  sides,  open  at  the  top.  Finite  in  itself,  in  its 
union  with  God  and  apprehension  of  God  it  is  infinite.  This 
mystery,  this  seeming  paradox,  is  strictly  parallel  with  the  para- 
dox that  the  soul  created  in  time  should  be  able  to  participate  in 
eternity,  and  both  paradoxes  spring  from  the  ultimate  mystery  of 
the  co-existence  of  the  creature  with  the  Creator,  of  the  finite  with 
the  infinite,  of  time  with  eternity,  of  the  relative  with  the  absolute. 
Any  attempt  to  solve  the  mystery  to  the  conceptual  reason  in- 
volves the  rejection  of  one  of  its  component  elements,  a solution 
that  denies  one  of  the  factors  of  the  problem  to  be  solved.  As  we 
cannot  comprehend  God,  neither  can  we  comprehend  this  mystery. 
We  can,  however,  have  an  intuitive  perception  of  the  two  co- 
existent elements  in  the  life  of  the  soul,  the  finite  and  the  infinite, 
the  temporal  and  the  eternal,  and  to  reject  this  immediate  per- 
ception because  we  cannot  state  it  with  entire  conceptual  intel- 
ligibility would  be  folly.  Those  therefore  who  possess  mystic 
union  or  beatific  vision  are  free  from  all  limits  and  thus  are 
infinite,  while  ever  remaining  in  their  essential  finitude  as  creatures, 
because  while  remaining  creatures  they  are  united  with  God  in 
the  most  intimate  union  and  thus  participate  in  His  Unlimited 
Being.  Moreover,  the  finite  activities  of  the  blessed,  while  still 
existing,  and  even  the  activities  arising  out  of  the  Resurrection 
body,  will,  though  limited,  be  no  longer  limiting,  for  they  will  be 
but  an  appanage  and  instrument  of  the  unlimited  Divine  life,  of 
which  the  blessed  to  the  utmost  measure  of  their  capacity  partake. 
This  emancipation  of  the  soul,  from  limits  by  the  reception  of  the 
Infinite  Being  of  God,  constitutes  the  mystic  way,  whose  goal  is  its 
perfect  achievement  in  heaven. 

(2)  Conversion  from  Creatures  to  God. 

When  God  grants  sanctifying  grace  to  the  soul,  He  does  not 
change  or  move  so  as  to  come  and  dwell  where  He  did  not  dwell 
before.  This  would  be  an  intrinsic  impossibility,  for  the  Divine 
Nature  is  changeless  and  immutable.  When,  therefore,  Our  Lord 
said  : “We  will  come  and  take  up  our  abode,”  He  was  using  the 
language  of  appearances,  as  we  do  when  we  speak  of  the  sun  rising 
and  setting.  The  entire  progress  in  the  way  of  grace,  from  the 
first  infusion  of  sanctifying  grace  to  the  entrance  into  glory,  is  a 


144  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

change  in  our  relation  to  God.  Gradually  the  confining  barriers, 
concepts  and  limited  will  aims  and  images,  which  separate  our 
soul  life  from  the  infinite  Godhead  ever  immanent  in  all  creatures, 
are  removed  and  destroyed.  Since,  however,  where  there  are  the 
fewest  limits  of  non-being  there  is  the  greater  participation  of  the 
Divine  Being,  God  is  most  especially  present  when  the  limits  are 
least.  Hence  He  is  especially  present  in  souls  emancipated  from 
the  limits  of  nature  by  sanctifying  grace,  and  the  greater  the  degree 
of  this  emancipation  the  fuller  is  the  Divine  Presence.  Thus  the 
increasingly  full  and  increasingly  intimate  Presence  of  God  in  the 
soul,  as  the  mystic  path  of  perfection  is  ascended,  is  constituted 
by  a progressive  emancipation  of  the  soul  from  the  limits  of 
creaturely  attachment.  The  soul  gradually  turns  towards  God, 
first  in  the  general  direction  of  the  will  alone,  later  in  all  its  volitions 
and  in  a conscious  though  obscure  perception  of  His  Presence. 
Sin  and  imperfection  which  are  essentially  aversion  from  God  and 
conversion  to  creatures  are  destroyed,  to  be  replaced  by  a life  of 
communion  with  God  and  aversion  from  creatures,  except  in  and 
for  Him.  This  gradual  conversion  of  the  soul  towards  God — 
present  in  its  centre — may  be  fitly  imaged  by  a comparison  drawn 
from  the  theatre.  Until  a few  minutes  before  the  curtain  rises  the 
stage  is  in  complete  darkness.  The  curtain  alone  is  visible.  The 
attention  of  the  playgoer  is  therefore  occupied  by  the  orchestra, 
by  the  fittings  of  the  auditorium  and  by  the  dress,  the  looks  and 
the  behaviour  of  the  audience.  These  are  far  more  interesting 
and  more  real  than  the  monotonous  curtain  and  the  darkness 
behind  it.  This  represents  the  ordinary  knowledge  of  the  soul  in 
this  life.  The  Divine  Reality  is  hidden  in  darkness  and  apparent 
unreality,  behind  the  curtain  of  a dogmatic  system  that  seems  a 
dreary  and  chillingly  abstract  system  of  merely  verbal  propositions 
and  formulae  and  of  meaningless  distinctions.  The  soul  is  occupied 
by  the  external  world  and  its  visible  inhabitants.  They  appear 
so  undeniably  real,  and  religion  so  unreal.  They  are  living,  religion 
is  dead.  Interest  centres  in  the  beauties  of  nature,  the  decking 
of  the  world  theatre,  in  a science  that  is  practically  useful,  its 
warmth  and  comfort,  in  an  art  whose  appeal  is  more  or  less  con- 
fined to  the  senses,  the  music  of  the  orchestra,  in  the  superficial 
character  and  conduct  of  individuals  and  the  fashions  and  current 
views  of  society,  the  audience  around,  their  features  and  coiffures, 
their  gowns  and  jewels.  Later  on,  however,  just  before  the  play 
commences,  the  auditorium  is  darkened  and  the  curtain  alone 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  145 

stands  out  in  brilliant  light.  The  attention  is  turned  by  this  from 
the  auditorium  and  audience  to  the  bright  curtain,  and  through 
that  to  the  stage  beyond,  with  its  approaching  scenery  and  drama. 
In  this  altered  condition  is  represented  mystical  experience, 
and  most  especially  that  most  perfect  mystical  experience  which 
is  the  transforming  union.  All  the  light  of  the  soul  now  pro- 
ceeds from  the  mystical  intuition,  which,  however,  is  also  the 
darkness  of  faith  in  a Divine  Reality  still  veiled  from  open  vision. 
The  natural  light  of  the  soul’s  self-principled  knowledge,  the  light 
derived  from  creatures,  is  now  but  obscurity.  The  false  brilliance 
of  the  world,  of  its  art  and  literature,  its  science  and  philosophy, 
its  luxuries  and  amusements,  its  fashions  and  views,  its  codes  and 
conventions,  just  now  so  dazzling  and  so  inevitable,  has  faded  into 
darkness  before  the  approach  of  this  Divine  light,  which,  however, 
reveals  nothing  distinct.  The  illuminated  curtain  does  not  dis- 
close the  scenery  behind  it.  There  is  now  an  entire  conversion  or 
reorientation  of  the  entire  psychical  life,  as  there  is  of  the  attention 
of  our  theatre  audience.  The  curtain  of  dogma  and  moral  pre- 
cept, formerly  so  dull  and  so  uninspiring,  alone  glows  with  light  in 
the  darkness,  and  that  radiant  curtain  is  the  portal  of  another 
world,  a world  of  surpassing  beauty  and  wonder.  Soon  the 
curtain  rises  in  the  theatre,  the  scene  is  disclosed  and  the  drama 
begins.  So  is  it  with  the  mystic  when  he  passes  out  of  this 
life.  Death  lifts  the  curtain  of  the  faith  and  discloses  the  open 
vision  of  Reality,  at  once  the  One  and  the  All,  God  Himself. 

Keep  in  mind  those  intermediate  moments  when  the  curtain 
is  still  lowered,  but  is  alone  brilliant  with  a light  that  draws  the 
attention  in  expectant  concentration  to  the  stage  beyond  it, 
and  to  its  approaching  drama.  They  are  an  image  of  the  veiled 
knowledge  of  the  Divine  Being  which  is  mystical  intuition,1  and 
of  the  total  conversion  of  the  soul  from  the  emptiness  of  creatures 
as  they  are  in  their  limiting  limitations  to  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
Reality  presented  thus  in  the  intuition  which  at  once  cloaks  and 
reveals  It. 

(3)  Introversion. 

Another  aspect  of  the  mystical  way  is  its  progressive  intro- 

1 Of  course  the  comparison,  like  most  other  similes,  is  incomplete.  The 
illuminated  curtain  discloses  nothing  of  the  scenery  and  actors  of  the  play ; the 
mystical  intuition  which  is  the  perfection  of  infused  faith  does  reveal  the  Presence, 
though  not  the  nature,  of  God. 

K 


146  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

version.  As  we  have  already  seen,  God  indwells  and  manifests 
Himself  in  a special  manner  in  the  central  depths  of  the  soul 
on  account  of  their  extreme  freedom  from  limitation.  Therefore 
the  infusion  of  sanctifying  grace  is  pre-eminently  the  constitution 
of  a new  relationship  to  God  of  these  central  depths,  of  a special 
union  with  God  of  the  central  ego,  so  that  He  is  present,  operates 
and  manifests  Himself  in  that  centre  after  a new  and  peculiarly 
intimate  fashion.  Hence  the  process  of  conversion  to  God,  which 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  one  aspect  of  the  way  of  sanctifying  grace 
and  therefore  pre-eminently  of  the  mystical  way,  is  also  a process 
of  introversion  from  the  external  world  to  those  central  depths 
wherein  He  is  thus  found.  The  attention,  indeed  the  veiy  life 
of  the  soul  must  be  gradually  detached  from  all  things  without 
and  concentrated  on  itself  (recollected  in  itself,  as  it  is  often  said), 
this,  however,  not  in  egoism  for  the  sake  of  the  self,  but  for  the 
sake  of  God  there  present  and  operative.  Moreover,  since  the 
most  superficial — that  is,  the  peripheral — activities  of  the  soul  are 
the  most  limited,  they  cannot  be  so  immediately  the  subject  and 
sphere  of  the  Divine  Working  through  grace  as  are  the  most  central 
and  least  limited  activities.  For  they  are  through  their  greater 
limitation  intrinsically  incapable  of  so  full  a reception  of  the  Divine 
Being  and  Operation.  Hence  as  the  soul  advances  in  the  mystical 
way  its  activities  become  ever  less  peripheral  and  more  central. 
The  superficial  activities  with  their  correspondingly  superficial 
objects  continuously  decrease.  Thus  the  entire  soul  life,  at  the 
outset  almost  wholly  peripheral,  becomes  increasingly  central — a 
conscious  life  of  the  centre  increasingly  united  with  the  centrally 
present  Godhead  and  increasingly  controlled  by  that  immanent 
Deity.  As  a result,  prayer  becomes  ever  more  free  from  the 
surface  activities  and  attentions  conditioned  by  sensible  images 
and  becomes  a contemplation  of  the  unimaged  Presence  in  the 
central  depths.  This  is  the  gradual  introversion  of  the  way  of 
grace  through  the  continuous  stages  of  mystical  union.  A certain 
introversion  is  indeed  possible  apart  from  grace  by  the  use  of 
natural  reason.  The  most  ignorant  are  the  most  superficial. 
The  scientist  and  philosopher,  and  still  more  the  artist,  will  and 
know  at  deep  psychical  levels  with  many  limits  removed.  But  the 
inner  barriers  remain  as  closely  barred  as  ever.  Grace  alone  can 
so  introvert  the  soul  as  to  free  the  central  trinity,  the  ground  of 
the  soul,  the  radical  cognition  and  the  radical  will  from  bondage, 
within  the  creaturely  limits  constituted  by  the  ultimately  sense- 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  147 

conditioned  objects  of  natural  knowledge  and  desire.  Grace 
alone  can  set  free  the  innate  Godward  tendency  of  the  centre, 
so  that  it  may  become  effectual  and  may  reach  its  goal.  I have 
already  quoted  from  the  first  stanza  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle 
passages  in  which  this  introversion  is  described.1  It  is  one  of  the 
most  fundamental  aspects  of  the  mystical  way. 


(4)  Detachment  from  Self. 

Another  aspect  of  the  mystical  process  is  the  increasing  destruc- 
tion  of  selfishness.  This  does  not  mean  that  we  are  to  seek  the 
fulfilment  of  God’s  will,  wholly  prescinding  from  our  own  posses- 
sion of  the  Divine  union — a specious  error  condemned  in  Fenelon. 
It  is  true  that  certain  saints  have  expressed  a willingness  to  be 
deprived  of  God  by  eternal  damnation,  if  it  were  to  His  greater 
glory.  Such  a supposition  is,  however,  an  intrinsic  impossibility. 
The  essence  of  damnation  is  the  eternal  separation  of  the  will 
from  God,  the  will’s  eternal  rejection  of  God.  But  that  rejection 
or  separation  is,  of  course,  the  absolute  disjunction  of  our  good, 
our  will’s  end,  from  the  will  of  God — a state  of  will  intrinsically 
incompatible  with  a will  to  be  damned  for  his  glory — i.e.  for  the 
perfect  fulfilment  of  His  will.  Thus  true  love  of  God  is  incom- 
patible with  willingness  for  the  eternal  will  aversion  from  God 
which  constitutes  hell.  Why  then  have  the  saints  used  language 
implying  readiness  to  be  damned  for  Christ’s  sake  ? The  answer 
surely  is  that  they  were  thinking,  not  of  the  essence  of  damnation 
— the  eternal  aversion  from  God — but  of  its  secondary  character 
of  eternal  suffering.*  That  they  were  ready  to  endure  if  only  they 
might  be  united  to  God  the  closer  by  this  supreme  self-surrender. 
That,  however,  is  not  the  condemned  pure  love  that  is  willing  to 
lose  union  with  its  object.  For  indeed  it  is  of  the  very  nature 
of  love  to  seek  union  with  the  Beloved.  No  lover  either  in  the 
natural  or  in  the  supernatural  order  can  be  satisfied  with  pleasing 
a Beloved  absent  and  unpossessed.  He  demands  the  closest 
possible  union,  the  most  entire  possession  of  the  Beloved.  The 
folly  of  a love  so  “ pure  ” that  it  rejects  union  with  its  object  for 
the  joy  that  union  would  bring  has  been  brilliantly  exposed  in 
the  case  of  human  love  in  that  delightful,  well-known  comic  opera, 
Patience.  One  could  not  find  a more  striking  reductio  ad 
absurdum  of  this  false  principle,  a more  convincing  exposition  of 

1 See  Chapter  V. 


148  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

its  incompatibility  with  the  essential  character  of  love.  But  the 
essential  character  of  love  is  the  same  in  the  supernatural  and 
the  natural  orders.  It  is  equally  incompatible  with  a saint’s 
love  of  God  not  to  will  union  with  Him  as  it  is  with  an  earthly 
lover’s  love  of  a woman  not  to  will  to  have  her,  if  possible,  in 
marriage.1  Therefore  it  is  of  the  nature  of  divine  love,  when 
pure  in  the  true  sense,  to  will  the  possession  of  God  its  Object  by 
the  closest  possible  union  and,  therefore,  to  will  the  beatific  vision 
of  heaven  as  being  essentially  that  union.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  love  is  perfectly  pure,  it  is  free  from  all  selfish  aim,  because 
it  seeks  nothing  outside  of  God,  not  even  the  joy  which  is  inevitably 
concomitant  upon  conscious  union  with  God  ; therefore,  not  even 
the  bliss  which  necessarily  attaches  to  the  beatific  vision.  Pure 
love  loves  God,  not  for  the  eternal  joy  of  His  eternal  possession, 
but  for  Himself,  and  therefore  for  His  eternal  possession  prescind- 
ing from  the  joy  possession  cannot  but  bring  with  it.  If  by  an 
impossibility  that  possession  brought  torment  instead  of  joy,  pure 
love  would  will  it  notwithstanding.  This  is  the  true  “ pure  love  ” 
as  opposed  to  its  condemned  perversion  ; this  is  the  true  unselfish- 
ness which  is  gradually  acquired  in  the  mystic  way.  Its  nature 
can  be  abundantly  illustrated  from  the  sayings  of  the  Saints. 
Dame  Julian  expressed  it  clearly  when  she  said  : “I  choose  Jesu 
to  my  heaven,”  St  Catherine  of  Genoa  voiced  pure  love  when  she 
thus  addressed  her  Lord,  when  after  communion  He  filled  her 
with  sensible  sweetness  : “ I do  not  want  that  which  proceedeth 
from  Thee  ; I want  Thyself  alone,  O tender  Love  . . . O Love, 
art  Thou  perhaps  intending  to  draw  me  to  Thee  by  means  of  these 
sensible  consolations  ? I want  them  not  : I want  nothing  except 
Thee  alone  ” (Baron  von  Hugel,  Mystical  Element  of  Religion, 
vol.  i.,  p.  280).  Lucie  Christine  accustomed  to  express  willingness 
to  be  deprived  of  glory  for  eternity,  heard  the  Divine  Voice  saying  : 
“ I Myself  am  the  glory  ” ( Spiritual  Journal,  Eng.  trs.,  p.  24). 
St  Bernard  said  of  love  : “ Habet  praemium  sed  id  quod  amatur  ” 
[Its  reward  is  the  possession  of  the  object  loved]  (De  Diligendo 
Deo,  chap,  vii.,  pp.  72-73.  Ed.  and  trs.  by  Edmund  Gardner). 
The  desire  for  this  reward  is  essentially  involved  in  the  love  itself. 
This  true  doctrine  of  pure  love  was  summarised  by  St  Augustine 
in  the  following  words  : — “ Whoso  seeks  from  God  any  other 
reward  but  God  ” (not.  any  reward  but  any  reward  out  of  God 

1 Unless  indeed  a higher  love  supervene,  or  the  marriage  union  would  injure 
the  beloved,  neither  of  which  is  possible  in  the  case  of  the  love  of  God. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  149 

Himself),  “ and  for  it  would  serve  God,  esteems  what  he  wishes  to 
receive,  more  than  Him  from  Whom  he  would  receive  it.  What 
then  ? Hath  God  no  reward  ? None,  save  Himself.  This  the  soul 
‘ loveth.’  If  it  love  aught  else,  it  is  no  pure  love  ” (St  Augustine 
on  Psalm  lxxii.  Quoted  by  Pusev  in  note  to  Confessions,  iv.  4). 

The  true  sense,  therefore,  in  which  love  must  be  disinterested 
is  that  the  soul  must  make  this  complete  iden  tification  of  its  own 
good,  its  end,  if  you  will,  its  reward,  with  God,  not  with  any 
consolation  or  other  gift  received  from  God,  but  with  Him 
in  Himself  alone.  This  “ pure  love  ” identifies  the  lover’s  good 
wholly  and  solely  with  its  Object,  and  therefore  must  will  the 
possession  of  its  Object  as  its  good  and  nothing  beside  that  Object. 
This  entire  identification  of  the  soul’s  good  with  God — the  absolute 
unlimited  good — is  St  Bernard’s  fourth  degree  of  love,  when  self 
is  loved  solely  for  God’s  sake.  This  is  a disinterested  and  pure 
love  indeed,  not,  therefore,  a love  which  excludes  the  desire  of 
the  beatific  vision,  but  a love  which  involves  that  desire.1 

The  attainment  of  an  entirely  pure  love,  of  perfect  detachment 
from  self-love,  is  the  gradual  change  of  isolated  acts  of  pure  love, 
into  a continuous  state  in  which  no  selfish  activity  of  the  soul 
continues  to  exist.  This  can  only  be  attained  at  the  close  of  the 
mystic  way  when  the  soul  has  been  detached,  not  only  from  self 
as  the  end,  but  from  self  as  the  principle  of  her  activity.  This 
final  and  most  radical  detachment  from  self,  involving  the  re- 
placement of  the  self  by  God,  as  the  ground  and  principle  of  the 
soul-life  will  be  explained  later,  when  I discuss  the  second  night 
and  spiritual  marriage.  Here  let  it  suffice  to  have  indicated  this 
goal  of  the  mystic  way  under  its  aspect  of  complete  detachment 
from  self.  Enough  has  been  said  to  emphasise  the  fundamental 
importance  of  this  aspect  without  which  any  activity  directed 
towards  the  attainment  of  the  more  unlimited  and  therefore  more 
real  realities  that  lie  beyond  the  ordinary  scope  of  our  psychical 
life  is  not  only  barren  but  positively  dangerous. 

(5)  Conversion  from  Matter  to  Spirit. 

The  mystic  way  is  a gradual  emancipation  of  the  soul  from 
the  limitations  of  matter,  by  a progressive  spiritualisation  of  its 
life.  Matter,  in  its  ultimate  analysis,  probably  an  electric  energy, 

1 Nevertheless  St  Bernard  thinks  that  this  love  will  not  be  perfect  till  heaven 
is  gained — nay  more,  the  Resurrection  of  the  body  past — since  these  desires,  right 
as  they  are,  in  some  sense  distract  from  the  love  of  God  (De  Diligendo  Deo). 


150  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

differs  from  spirit  by  the  lack  of  certain  properties,  or,  from  another 
point  of  view,  by  its  reproduction  and  representation  of  the  Divine 
Being  under  certain  fundamental  limitations  which  are  absent 
from  spirit.  Therefore  the  process  from  the  limited  to  the  un- 
limited involves  the  ever-increasing  transcendence  of  the  limita- 
tions arising  from  matter.  I do  not  mean  by  this  that  matter 
is  itself  finally  abandoned.  The  entire  Incarnational  and  Sacra- 
mental system,  with  its  corollary,  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body, 
affirms  the  unsoundness  of  this  Platonic  belief.  But  it  does  mean 
that  the  material  ceases  to  confine  with  its  limitations.  In  the 
Resurrection  the  material  body  will  be  the  perfectly  docile  in- 
strument of  the  spirit.  It  will  not,  like  our  present  body,  condi- 
tion or  limit  the  activity  of  the  spirit.  Now  the  spirit  is  incarnate. 
Then  the  flesh  will  be  inspirited.  This  transformation  is  indeed 
the  final  and  most  perfect  triumph  of  the  soul,  the  third  stage  of 
its  progress.  First,  the  spirit  is  in  bondage,  though  never  wholly 
enslaved  to  the  limitations  of  the  flesh,  unable  to  know  or  will 
anything  that  has  not  first  been  presented  by  the  bodily  senses. 
Under  the  action  of  grace,  it  attains  an  ever-increasing  freedom 
from  these  bodily  limitations,  until  at  death  it  becomes  wholly 
discamate.  It  is  true  that  even  the  most  sensual,  body-enslaved 
souls  are  freed  from  the  body  at  death.  We  may,  however, 
conjecture  that  their  life  beyond  the  grave  is  of  a very  feeble  and 
semi-dormant  nature.  They  have  aotualised  their  spiritual 
powers  so  little,  have  reduced  the  soul  to  so  close  a dependence 
on  the  body,  that  the  spirit  is  now  left  in  darkness  of  understand- 
ing and  feebleness  of  will-energy,  an  all  but  empty  shade,  as  the 
Greeks  imagined  the  ghosts  in  Hades,  and  the  earlier  Jews,  the 
dead  in  Sheol.  The  soul  is  indeed  essentially  immortal,  and  this 
involves  some  exercise  of  the  spiritual  powers,  but  that  exercise 
is  reduced  to  a minimum.  If  this  condition  endures  only  for  a 
time  it  is  the  purgatory  of  sensual  souls  saved  at  the  last — if  for 
ever,  their  damnation.1  This  second  stage,  wherein  the  spirit 
is  wholly  separated  from  the  flesh,  was  erroneously  regarded  by 
Plato  as  the  highest  and  final  stage.  Last  and  highest  of  all  is 
the  third  stage,  when  the  body  is  restored,  but  the  spirit  is  in  such 

1 This  is,  of  course,  mere  speculation- — -well  grounded,  I believe.  All  the 
damned  receive  back  their  bodies.  In  the  case  of  these  sensual  souls  we  may 
believe  that  their  bodies  are  left  without  power  to  supply  due  food — subject  matter 
— to  the  spirit,  which  remains,  therefore,  in  its  impotence  and  inanity.  And  still 
less  can  the  soul  inspirit  the  body  as  in  the  Resurrection  of  the  just. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  151 

full  actualisabion  that  its  operation  wholly  dominates  and,  so  to 
speak,  absorbs  the  sensible  operations  and  consciousness  of  the 
body.  The  mystic  way  on  earth  is,  of  course,  essentially  the  way 
from  the  first  to  the  second  stage,  the  gradual  escape  of  the  soul 
from  bondage  to  the  limitations  of  matter  and  sense,  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  spiritual  for  the  carnal  man.1  For  St  Paul  terms 
the  natural  life  of  the  soul,  the  life  of  the  old  man,  carnal,  and  its 
possessor  the  carnal  man  : its  opposite,  the  supernatural  life, 
the  life  that  is  manifested  in  mystical  experience,  the  life  of  the 
new,  man  spiritual,  and  its  possessor  the  spiritual  man.  He  does 
so  because  the  natural  soul  life  of  man  is  essentially  bound  by 
material  conditions  transcended  only  by  the  new  “ creature  ” 
of  grace.  The  soul  can  only  become  a free  and  matter- 
transcendent  spirit  by  its  elevation  and  possession  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  grace.  Hence  St  Paul  speaks  indifferently 
of  “ carnal  ” and  “ psychic  ” for  the  matter-conditioned  life  of 
the  unregenerate  and  reserves  the  appellation  “ spiritual  ” for  the 
Spirit-quickened  and  therefore  matter-emancipated  life  of  the 
regenerate. 

In  its  gradual  emancipation  from  the  limits  of  matter,  the 
soul  transcends  first  the  limitations  of  the  bodily  senses  and 
desires.  Then  it  transcends  in  the  understanding  the  image- 
conditioned  concepts  and  discourse  due  ultimately  to  sensible 
data,  and  in  the  will,  attachment  to  those  more  spiritualised  goods, 
which  are,  nevertheless,  ultimately  generalisations  from  the  more 
external  goods  of  sense — for  example,  ambition,  desire  of  sensible 
consolations  in  religion  and  the  like.  These  attachments  to  less 
immediately  material  goods  are  classified  by  St  John  of  the  Cross 
under  seven  heads,  which  he  terms  the  seven  spiritual  sins.  They 
are  the  spiritual  counterparts  of  the  seven  capital  vices.  Though 
many  of  these  sins  appear  at  first  sight  desires  of  spiritual  goods, 
closer  examination  reveals  them  to  be  desires  containing  a material 
element,  limitations  of  material  origin.  These  limitations  are 
desires  for  particular  selfish  pleasures  sensibly  felt,  pleasures  of 
the  lower  sensible  functions  of  the  soul. 

Of  course  certain  spiritual  sins  have  less  of  the  material  than 
others.  Spiritual  pride  may  seem  far  indeed  removed  from  sense 
and  its  pleasure.  Nevertheless  spiritual  pride  is  essentially  a love 
and  esteem  for  the  ego  as  a limited  being,  apart  from  the  universal 

1 There  is,  however,  as  we  shall  see  later,  a certain  foretaste  in  the  mystic  way 
of  the  third  or  Resurrection  stage. 


152  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

good.  But  this  limitation  by  the  self  and  by  its  selfish  good — - 
for  example,  individual  pre-eminence  above  others — is  largely 
rooted  in  the  material  and  sensible,  in  images  and  in  image- 
derived  concepts.  Pride,  though  the  sin  of  discarnate  devils, 
is  in  man  carnal  in  the  widest  sense.  We  must  not  confuse  the 
psychology  of  the  angels  and  devils,  of  which  we  know  practically 
nothing,  with  the  psychology  of  man  in  his  bodily  life  on  earth. 

The  progress  of  the  understanding  and  of  the  will  are  parallel. 
While  the  will  is  being  gradually  detached  from  all  limitations 
in  its  object,  limitations  due  directly  or  indirectly  to  matter, 
the  understanding,  having  first  transcended  the  limits  of  images 
corporeal  or  imaginary,  proceeds  to  free  itself,  or  rather  to  allow 
itself  to  be  freed  from  the  limitations  of  even  the  most  general 
ideas  ; for  even  these  most  general  and  most  spiritual  ideas,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  distinct  notions,  are  generalisations  from  ultimate 
sense  data,  and  as  such  are  rooted  in  the  material,  are  limited  by 
matter.  Indeed,  in  human  psychology  the  distinct  and  the 
limited  are  ultimately  deducible  to  the  material.  Pure  spirituality 
is  the  entire  actuation  of  the  soul  to  and  in  God,  the  one  sole 
Unlimited.  But  it  may  be  urged,  though  God  is  indeed  pure 
spirit,  is  not  this  true  of  many  creatures  also — namely,  the  angels, 
even  the  fallen  angels  ? There  may,  therefore,  be  pure  spirituality 
without  union  with  God.  All  spirituality,  I would  reply,  that  is 
truly  pure,  is  in  closest  union  with  God,  as  are  the  angels  in  heaven. 
Although  the  diabolic  nature  is  indeed  wholly  immaterial,  it  is 
in  many  ways  subject  to,  conditioned  and  limited  by  the  material. 
Indeed,  may  not  this  limitation  and  confinement  by  matter, 
which  must  be  agony  to  a discarnate  intelligence,  constitute  one 
of  the  chief  sufferings  of  the  evil  spirits  ? To  me  this  seems 
very  probable.  Thus  is  the  mystic  way  an  increasing  emancipa- 
tion of  the  spirit  from  the  matter  which  conditions  and  confines 
its  natural  life  on  earth. 


(6)  Increase  of  Delicacy  or  Subtlety  ( Delgadez ). 

A subordinate  aspect  of  this  gradual  dematerialisation  of  the 
soul  is  its  increasing  subtlety  or  delicacy  (delgadez,  as  St  John 
terms  it).  This  epithet  is  employed  by  St  John,  both  of  the  soul 
in  its  highest  state  of  union  and  of  the  Divine  Being,  Who  then 
consciously  operates  within  it,  having  penetrated  and  taken 
possession  of  its  central  substance  and  its  functions,  (See 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  153 

Mystical  Marriage,  chap  .xii.)  The  meaning  of  this  somewhat 
strange  term  is  perhaps  a little  obscure  at  first  sight,  and  its 
elucidation  will  amply  repay  careful  study.  The  principle 
underlying  the  use  of  the  epithet  is,  I believe,  that  the  coarse  is 
always  the  most  limited  and  the  most  material.  A coarse  soul 
is  conversant  entirely  or  almost  entirely  with  matter  and  material 
phenomena  as  such,  not  as  embodiments  of  spirit,  and  therefore 
perceives  only  the  most  material  and  superficial  aspect  of  experi- 
ence, and  is  always  arrested  at  the  surface  of  things.  Coarse 
humour,  for  instance,  differs  from  refined  or  delicate  humour  by 
its  greater  limitation  and  externality.  It  does  not  penetrate  so 
deeply  below  the  surface.  It  is  true  that  in  ordinary  usage  the 
term  “ coarse  ” is  confined  to  those  who  know  and  love  only  those 
absolutely  material  facts  and  aspects  of  life  which  are  perceptible 
and  lovable  by  the  irrational  beasts.  If,  and  in  so  far  as,  a soul 
penetrates  below  these  absolutely  material  and  utterly  exterior 
aspects,  it  ceases  to  be  termed  coarse.  Such  a soul,  however,  may 
still  be  confined  to  the  more  superficial  regions  of  experience, 
without  penetrating  deeply  in  any  direction  and  never  attaining 
the  truly  spiritual.  This  soul  is  still  essentially  a vulgar  soul, 
for  coarseness  is  simply  the  highest  degree  of  vulgarity,  vulgarity 
in  its  greatest  intensity.  Coarseness  is  that  condition  of  soul  in 
which  the  will  and  perception  are  most  narrowly  limited  and  least 
penetrative.  But  there  are  other  degrees  to  which  the  term  coarse 
is  not  applied,  where  the  limits  are  still  exceedingly  narrow. 
These  lesser,  but  still  very  great,  degrees  of  limitation  constitute, 
if  not  coarseness,  vulgarity.  Vulgar  souls  of  this  kind  are  con- 
versant only  with  pleasures  and  perceptions  but  one  degree 
superior  to  those  of  the  beasts.  They  still  perceive  and  love 
only  those  things  which  belong  to  the  surface  of  experience,  which 
are  almost  wholly  material,  the  obvious  hard  and  brutal  facts 
which  possess  an  exceeding  small  degree  of  reality  because  so 
limited  and  exterior.  If  the  coarse  man  judges  all  things  by  their 
direct  relationship  to  sensual  pleasure,  the  vulgar  man  applies 
the  same  standard  somewhat  more  indirectly.  His  thought  and 
will  move  within  a narrow  circle  and  they  never  pierce  far  below 
the  surface.  His  psychical  activities  are  essentially  coarse,  because 
essentially  matter-bound,  in  their  inability  to  escape  these  super- 
ficial limits  and  to  attain  the  deeper  reality  that  is  farther  removed 
from  the  senses. 

In  fact  the  essence  of  vulgarity,  which  is,  after  all,  but  another 


154  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

term  for  coarseness  of  soul,  is  extreme  limitation  and  externality. 
To  be  very  narrow-minded  and  shallow-minded  is  to  be  vulgar. 
If  a man’s  soul  is  narrow  in  its  sympathy  and  knowledge,  but 
deep,  he  will  be  a bigot,  but  cannot  be  a vulgarian.  Or  again, 
if  a man’s  sympathy  and  knowledge  are  wide,  but  more  or  less 
superficial — if  they  are  really  wide,  they  cannot  be  extremely 
superficial — such  a man  is  not  entirely  vulgar,  though  still  vulgar 
in  proportion  to  his  lack  of  depth.  It  is  the  union  of  narrowness 
with  shallowness  which  constitutes  perfect  vulgarity.  The  vulgar 
man  is  incapable  of  any  true  intellectual  or  artistic  activity  or 
perception,  for  such  perceptions  and  activities  transcend  the 
limitations  of  the  immediately  sensible.  On  such  matters  his 
views  are  but  a parrot-like  repetition  of  those  current  in  his  social 
environment.  For  the  vulgar  man  science  is  valuable  only  as  a 
means  to  tangible  results  and  profit-making  inventions.  His 
irotion  of  art  is  the  provision  of  gaudy  colours  and  jingling  tunes 
for  the  grossest  delight  of  the  outer  senses.  To  the  beauty  of 
nature  he  is  blind,  or  at  best  he  sees  it  but  as  a superficial  pretti- 
ness, the  utmost  attainable  by  the  physical  senses  alone.  In 
religion,  a man  may  indeed  be  saved  by  grace  from  vulgarity, 
while  remaining  vulgar  in  all  other  departments  of  life.  True 
devotion  pierces  below  the  limits  that  constitute  vulgarity. 
Otherwise  his  religion  is  but  the  utterance  of  resonant  catchwords 
and  the  intoxication  of  hymn-singing.1  Thus  is  vulgarity  the 
confinement  of  the  soul  in  the  prison  of  the  external  aspects  and 
the  material  objects  that  are  immediately  perceptible  by  sense. 
Refinement  or  subtlety,  St  John’s  delgadez,  penetrates  below  the 
surface  by  transcending  the  particularity  and  limitations  of  the 
superficial  and  sensible  fact,  or  appearance,  or  of  the  concept, 
thence  derived.  It  reaches  either  by  intuition  or  by  thought, 
the  more  unlimited  because  more  spiritual  reality  that  underlies 
the  immediate  sense  datum,  the  surface  appearance,  the  particular 
and  sense-derived  concept.  Refined  and  subtle  souls  are  quick, 
therefore,  to  perceive  the  underlying  identity  of  various  particulars 
which  are  superficially  different.  If  they  effect  this  by  intuition, 
they  are  men  or  women  of  delicate  and  subtle  sympathies  ; if  by 
reasoning,  they  are  quick-witted,  acute,  clever.  This  identity 
perceived  by  the  subtle  soul  is  not  primarily  one  of  material 
elements.  The  identities  apprehended  by  the  penetration  of 
sensibility,  talent  and,  in  a higher  degree,  of  genius,  are  spiritual 

1 And  what  hymns  ? Consult  our  popular  hymnals. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  155 

identities  of  principles  and  ideas.  From  the  perception  of  spiritual 
identity  arises  that  wide  and  comprehensive  sympathy  which  ac- 
companies delicacy  of  soul.  Even  the  senses  of  the  subtle  soul  are 
disciplined  to  perceive  details,  whether  similarities  or  differences, 
that  do  not  appear  in  the  broad  outlines  and  large  characters 
which  alone  are  perceived  by  the  senses  of  grosser  souls.  This 
more  acute  sense-perception  is  due  in  such  souls  to  their  fuller 
perception  of  the  significance  and  beauty  of  material  objects — 
that  is,  to  the  deeper  penetration  which  pierces  below  their  super- 
ficial aspects.  Subtlety  or  refinement  is,  therefore,  essentially 
an  aspect  of  insight,  opposed  to  the  spiritual  blindness  of  those 
who  can  only  see  the  superficial  phenomena  discernible  by  the 
senses.  Genius  is  but  a supreme  degree  of  this  subtlety  or  penetra- 
tion, for  the  genius  is  a genius  essentially  because  he  perceives 
more  clearly  than  others  the  inner  likeness  and  kinship,  the 
underlying  identity  of  superficially  unlike  objects.  This  is  the 
explanation  of  the  fact,  often  remarked,  that  the  supreme  genius 
sums  up  his  age,  that  his  work  is  the  full  and  final  expression  of  all 
the  forces  which  constitute  his  epoch,  its  aims,  conscious  or  un- 
conscious, its  religious  beliefs,  its  dominant  ideas  and  interests, 
its  moral  preferences,  its  aesthetic  canons,  even  its  limitations, 
its  ignorances,  its  prejudices — in  short,  that  in  him  his  age  becomes 
fully  self-conscious.  Thus  does  Homer  sum  up  the  heroic  age 
of  Hellenic  migration  ; Euripides  the  rationalism  and  the  newly 
awakened  humanity  of  fifth-century  Athens.  Virgil  is  the  voice 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  Divina  Commedia  of  the  Catholic  and 
feudal  civilisation  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Shakespeare  of  the  Humanist 
Renaissance,  while  Monsieur  Rolland’s  Jean  Christophe  represents 
the  immanentism  and  natural  vitalism  of  the  present  day.  For 
the  genius  by  his  penetrative  vision  has  more  than  any  other 
broken  through  the  barriers  between  himself  and  the  general  life 
of  his  epoch.  Indeed  his  genius  is  essentially  his  free  receptivity 
of  the  complexus  of  forces  composing  the  “ time  spirit  ” that  below 
the  surface  of  divergent  and  conflicting  individualties  invisibly 
fashions,  unites  and  directs  the  life  and  thought  of  his  contem- 
poraries. For  these  forces  of  which  they  imprisoned  within  the 
limits  of  the  superficial,  the  individual,  the  local,  are  not  at  all 
or  but  partially  conscious,  are  apprehended  by  this  delicate, 
sensitive  instrument,  his  subtle,  and  therefore  widely  perceiving 
and  deeply  penetrating,  insight. 

Delicacy  or  subtlety  is  thus  clearness  and  penetration  of 


156  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

spiritual  vision — “ insight  ” ; vulgarity  or  coarseness  is  dimness  of 
spiritual  vision,  a dimness  which  amounts  in  many  cases  to  an 
almost  total  blindness.  This  blindness  of  vulgarity  is  at  the 
opposite  pole  to  mystical  intuition,  as  indeed  the  vulgar  man 
is  of  all  men  the  farthest  removed  from  the  mystic.  For  the 
vulgar  soul  is  the  most  limited,  the  mystic  soul  the  freest  from 
limits. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  most  vulgar  man,  the  bestial  man 
of  Aristotle  and  St  Thomas  1 is  not  so  guilty  as  the  man  or  angel 
who  uses  his  higher  faculties,  his  less  limited  being,  to  exclude 
God  by  deliberate  malice.  Therefore  on  account  of  his  greater 
guilt  or  aversion  of  will  the  malicious  man,  and  even  more,  the 
fallen  angel,  is  further  removed  from  God  and  therefore  from  the 
mystic  than  the  vulgar  or  bestial  man.  We  need  here  a careful 
distinction.  Since  the  soul  of  the  vulgar  man  is  confined  within 
narrower  limits,  he  participates  less  in  God’s  Unlimited  Being  than 
the  malicious  sinner  and  a fortiori  than  Satan,*  and  is  therefore 
further  removed  from  God.  Since,  however,  his  will  has  not  been 
so  deliberately  averted  from  God  in  despite  of  knowledge,  he 
does  not  adhere  so  fully  and  so  firmly  to  the  more  limited  good 
of  his  choice,  as  do  the  malicious  sinner  and  Satan  to  their  less 
limited  goods.  Although  his  prison  is  narrower,  he  is  not  bound 
so  fast  within  it.  He  has  de  facto  less  of  God,  but  that  greater 
lack  is  not  so  much  his  own  fault.  Hence  he  has  a greater  capacity 
and  more  prospect  of  release  from  his  narrower  limitations  and  of 
future  union  with  God  than  has  the  malicious  sinner  on  earth, 
whereas  Satan  and  a damned  soul  have  no  capacity  for  this  release 
and  union.  Thus  although  those  latter  are  not  so  far  removed 
in  being  from  God  as  the  former,  their  removal  is  in  another  sense 
more  complete,  for  their  fuller  being  is  more  actively  exclusive 
of  the  Divine  Being  than  the  scantier  being  of  the  vulgar  soul, 
which  does  not  oppose  an  equal  resistance  to  fulfilment  by  God’s 
self-donation.  This  is  surely  the  ground  of  Gregory’s  dictum  that 
“carnal  sins  are  less  guilty  but  more  infamous  than  spiritual.”  2 
For  guilt  is  the  measure  of  a soul’s  deliberate  self-confinement, 
disgrace  the  measure  of  the  limitation  within  which  the  soul  is 
confined.  Therefore  although  in  guilt  that  is  in  the  intensity 

1 I regard  this  “ bestiality  ” as  the  supreme  degree  of  vulgarity  beyond  coarse- 
ness. What  is  said  of  vulgarity  at  its  maximum  is  applicable  in  due  proportion 
to  lesser  degrees. 

2 Quoted  by  Reade,  Moral  System  of  Dante’s  Inferno. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  157 

of  bondage  an  evil  spirit  and  among  men  a malicious  sinner  is 
the  antithesis  of  the  mystic,  in  the  limitation  itself,  that  is,  in  the 
scope  of  confinement — the  lack  of  actual  participation  of  God, 
the  bestial  or  vulgar  man  is  the  antithesis  of  the  mystic.  From 
the  cognitional  standpoint  with  which  we  are  at  present  con- 
cerned the  field  of  vision  of  the  vulgar  man  is  narrower  than  that 
of  the  malicious,  although  it  is  less  indisposed  for  possible  future 
enlargement.  Hence  the  vision  of  the  vulgar  man  rather  than 
that  of  the  malicious  soul  or  the  evil  spirit  is  antithetic  to  the 
vision  of  the  mystic. 

It  is  true  that  insight  in  one  direction  must  usually  be  pur- 
chased by  a temporary  sacrifice  of  insight  in  other  directions. 
To  attain  depth  the  soul  must  become  less  broad.  In  the  end, 
however,  the  breadth  is  restored  at  a deeper  level,  attained  not 
by  wide  knowledge  of  facts  at  a more  or  less  superficial  level,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  typical  broad-minded  man,  but  by  apprehension 
of  the  spiritual  unity  underlying  the  superficial  manifold.  The 
real  bigot,  on  the  other  hand,  stops  short  too  soon.  He  reaches 
indeed  a deeper  level  and  therefore  a more  unlimited  reality  than 
the  more  superficial,  broad-minded  man.  But  he  is  arrested  by  a 
spiritual  pride  and  selfishness  which  prevent  him  from  going 
deeper  and  reaching  an  even  more  unlimited  reality  and  there- 
fore exclude  from  his  spiritual  vision  the  true  generality  of  the 
spiritual  fact  or  principle  which  he  has  attained.  When  therefore 
the  world  abuses  a religious  soul  as  narrow-minded  and  bigoted, 
we  have  to  discover  whether  that  soul  is  really  bigoted — that  is, 
narrowed  by  the  limitations  of  self-satisfaction — or  has  simply 
concentrated  its  activity  in  order  to  attain  a deeper  level,  a 
principle  of  wider  scope,  at  and  by  which  it  will  be  able  to  unify 
and  embrace  the  manifold,  superficially  embraced  by  the  broad- 
minded man  of  the  world.  We  must,  however,  remember  that  in 
this  life  a truly  religious  soul — nay,  even  a saint — may  only  grasp 
potentially  this  universal  character  of  spiritual  reality.  Seeing 
that  various  departments  of  more  or  less  superficial  activity  or 
knowledge  tend  in  practice  to  exclude  souls  from  the  depths  of 
the  spirit,  he  may  on  that  account  ruthlessly  condemn  them  as 
essentially  and  necessarily  limiting  and  therefore  evil  in  them- 
selves. Such  an  one  fails  to  realise,  though  he  must  admit  it 
theoretically,  that  even  these  superficial  activities  and  spheres 
are  in  their  positive  being  good.  He  equally  fails  to  realise  that 
vast  multitudes  are  in  the  present  order  so  ignorant  of  divine 


158  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

truth  and  so  temperamentally  disposed  as  to  be  quite  unable  to 
transcend  them  save,  of  course,  in  the  general  will  aim  necessary 
to  supernatural  charity.  For  these  souls,  much  occupation  with 
these  activities  and  spheres,  despite  their  inevitable  limitation, 
is  the  best  course  possible,  and,  in  proportion  as  the  activities  and 
knowledge  is  question  are  more  spiritual  and  unlimited,  is  in- 
creasingly good.  This  want  of  realisation  and  consequent  narrow- 
ness is  not,  however,  due  to  any  defect  in  the  saint’s  principles 
or  way  of  life,  or  to  any  deficiency  or  limitation  in  the  object 
attained  by  him,  but  simply  to  the  inability  of  any  soul  while  in 
this  mortal  flesh  to  actualise  fully  all  potencies,  to  grasp  all  aspects 
of  truth,  to  draw  all  the  logical  inferences,  to  see  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  a truth  attained.  This  necessary  limitation,  which  is 
least  existent  in  the  greatest  saints,  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  the 
saint  and  the  mystic  have  grasped  the  one  Unlimited  Reality, 
which  gives  its  meaning  and  value  to  every  activity  and  appre- 
hension of  any  human  soul  whatsoever,  however  superficial  and 
limited  that  meaning  or  value  may  be. 

Hitherto  I have  spoken  of  delicacy  in  its  cognitional  aspect 
as  penetrative  insight  free  from  the  narrow  limits  of  superficial 
vision.  It  has,  of  course,  its  corresponding  conational  aspect, 
the  delicacy  of  will,  that  loves  and  seeks  the  deep  spiritual  values 
apprehended  by  the  subtle  understanding.  Thus  delicacy  or 
subtlety  (delgadez)  is  the  state  of  soul,  whether  manifested  in 
knowledge  or  love,  that  penetrates  deepest  beyond  the  most 
limited  surface  appearance  or  sphere  of  being,  and  attains  the 
more  unlimited  reality  which  underlies  it.  The  freer  our  psychical 
operations  are  of  limits  the  more  are  they  conversant  with  the 
interior  and  spiritual  realities  that  underlie  the  complex  manifold 
of  the  external  and  material,  the  more  delicate  and  more  subtle, 
therefore,  are  they,  since  they  are  not  hindered,  blunted  and 
diminished,  and  therefore  coarsened,  by  the  limitations  of  the 
most  superficial  and  the  most  particular  objects.  “ We  must 
bear  in  mind,”  writes  St  John,  “ that  a thing  is  wide  and  capacious 
in  proportion  to  its  delicacy,  and  the  more  subtle  and  delicate  it  is, 
the  more  extensively  does  it  diffuse  and  communicate  itself  ” 
(Living  Flame , st.  2).  When  finally  the  psychical  operations 
are  immediately  conversant  with  God,  not  apprehended  under 
any  particular  image  or  concept,  but  as  the  incomprehensible 
Being  infinitely  transcending  all  created  objects  and  yet  in- 
timately present  to  and  immanent  in  them  all  in  porportion  to 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  159 


their  freedom  from  limitation,  these  operations  are  most  subtle 
and  delicate,  fitly  imaged  by  some  very  subtle,  physical  force, 
which  by  reason  of  its  subtlety  penetrates  other  substances,  and 
is  not  confined  by  grossness  of  bulk  or  nature  to  a very  limited  1 
sphere  of  being  and  activity. 

As  we  shall  see  later,  the  activities  of  a soul  in  the  highest 
state  of  union  are  receptions  of  the  Divine  activity.  Therefore 
in  describing  the  operation  of  such  a soul  St  John  speaks  of  the 
Divine  activity  or  operation  in  that  soul.  But  it  is  plain  that  if 
delicacy  or  subtlety  increases  with  increased  freedom  from  limita- 
tions, the  activity  of  God  must  be  infinitely  delicate  or  subtle, 
being  excluded  or  confined  by  no  limitation.  Everything,  there- 
fore that  I have  said  of  delicacy  applies  pre-eminently  to  the 
Divine  operation,  and  indeed  it  is  only  by  participation  in 
that  operation  that  the  activities  of  the  soul  can  attain  to  the 
perfect  subtlety  of  entire  freedom  from  limits.  “ O thou  delicate 
touch,  thou  Word  the  Son  of  God,”  writes  St  John,  “ that  through 
the  delicacy  [subtlety]  of  thy  divine  Being  dost  subtly  penetrate 
the  substance  of  my  soul  and  touching  it  delicately  throughout 
dost  absorb  it  wholly  in  Thyself  in  divine  ways  of  delights  and 
sweetness  never  heard  in  the  land  of  Canaan  nor  seen  in  Teman. 

. . . Oh  my  God  and  my  life,  they  only  shall  see  Thee  and  shall 
feel  Thy  subtle  touch  who  have  made  themselves  alien  to  the 
world,  and  have  made  themselves  subtle,  for  the  subtle  fits  the 
subtle,  and  so  shall  they  be  able  to  feel  and  to  enjoy  Thee.  Such 
as  those  dost  Thou  touch  with  a subtlety  proportionate  to  their 
condition  seeing  that  the  substance  of  their  soul  hath  now  been 
purged,  purified  and  rendered  subtle.”  (All  the  natural  limits 
of  its  activity  have  been  destroyed  that  hitherto  excluded  it  from 
the  unlimited  reception  of  the  all-penetrating  Unlimited.)  . . . 
“ Oh,  once  again  and  many  times  over  delicate  touch,  Thou  art 
the  more  strong  and  powerful,  the  more  delicate  Thou  art,  for 
with  the  force  of  Thy  delicacy  Thou  dost  undo  the  soul  and 
alienate  it  from  all  touches  of  things  created  and  dost  appropriate 
it  to  Thyself  and  unite  it  to  Thyself  alone.  Thou  dost  leave 
within  it  an  effect  so  delicate,  that  every  touch  of  aught,  high  or 
low,  seems  coarse  and  impure  ” (because  its  essential  limit  is  felt, 
excluding  and  debarring  the  soul’s  activity).  . . . “ The  Word, 
that  is  the  touch  that  toucheth  the  soul,  is  infinitely  subtle  and 


1 I mean  limited  qualitatively  not  quantitatively.  Grosser  substances 
obviously  occupy  more  space. 


160  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

delicate.  The  soul  is  a wide  and  capacious  vessel  on  account  of 
the  great  purity  and  subtlety  possessed  in  this  state  ” (of  supreme 
mystical  union).  “ Ah  then,  O thou  delicate  touch,  Thou  dost 
infuse  Thyself  into  my  soul  with  such  plenty  and  abundance 
proportionate  to  Thy  subtlety  and  to  the  purity  of  my  soul.  . . . 
This  divine  touch  possesses  no  bulk  nor  volume,  for  the  Word  that 
effects  it  is  devoid  of  all  mode  or  fashion,  and  free  from  all  volume, 
form,  figure  or  accident,  whose  nature  it  is  to  confine  and  limit 
substance.  . . . Ah  then,  in  fine,  how  ineffably  delicate  is  this 
Thy  touch,  O Thou  Word,  seeing  it  is  effected  in  the  soul  with 
Thy  most  simple  substance  and  with  Thy  intimate  Being,  that 
is  infinitely  delicate,  because  it  is  infinite  ” (without  limits) 
{Living  Flame,  st.  2).  Thus  in  proportion  as  the  soul  is  united 
to  the  unlimited  Being  of  God  by  its  reception  and  participa- 
tion of  His  unlimited  activity,  the  activity  of  that  soul  becomes 
delicate  or  subtle,  for  it  penetrates  and  transcends  all  the  limits 
of  creatures  passing  through  and  beyond  them  to  the  Unlimited 
present  in,  through  and  beyond  them  all.  This  is  well  expressed 
by  Mother  Cecilia  when  she  says  that  one  of  the  effects  of  the 
mystical  union  is  that  “ God  renders  increasingly  subtle  all  the 
properties  and  activities  of  the  soul  ...  so  that  all  things  that 
might  hinder  it  seem  now  devoid  of  substance  ” ( Transformation , 
st.  16). 

(7)  Liberation. 

Patrata  sunt  haec  mystice 
Paschae  peracto  tempore 
Sacro  dierum  circulo 
Quo  lege  fit  remissio. 

[These  things  were  done  in  type  that  day 
When  Paschal  tide  had  passed  away. 

The  number  told  which  once  set  free 
The  captive  in  the  jubilee.] 

These  words  are  sung  by  the  Church  in  her  Whitsun  lauds 
to  commemorate  the  first  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  souls 
of  her  children.  In  remarking  this  numerical  coincidence  between 
the  Jewish  liberation  of  slaves  in  the  Sabbatical  year — that  is, 
every  fiftieth  year — and  the  advent  of  the  Spirit  on  the  fiftieth  day 
after  Easter,  she  insinuates  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  His  work  in  the  soul  is  essentially  an  emancipation  of  the 
soul  from  spiritual  bondage.  The  mystical  union-intuition  is, 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  161 

as  we  have  seen,  but  a manifestation  of  the  life  of  grace  and 
therefore  of  that  Presence  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
soul  that  is  constituted  by  sanctifying  grace.  If,  therefore,  the 
ordinary  life  of  grace  with  its  secret  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  be 
essentially  a liberation  of  the  soul,  the  mystical  union  must  be 
the  attainment  of  a far  more  complete  liberty.  Thus  the  mystical 
way  is  under  another  aspect  a gradual  emancipation. 

No  age  has  boasted  a greater  devotion  to  freedom  than  our  own. 
We  are  impatient  of  all  control,  whether  of  Church,  of  State  or  of 
family,  except,  indeed,  in  war-time,  when  no  servitude  seems  too 
great,  no  yoke  too  hard  for  the  patient  endurance  of  the  peoples 
of  Europe,  who  rush  gladly  in  their  millions  to  be  butchered  at  the 
command  of  irresponsible  cliques  of  statesmen.  Such  a slavery 
is  indeed  the  fitting  Nemesis  of  the  false  liberty  of  modern  thought 
and  life.  But  what  then  is  true  liberty  ? The  prevalent  con- 
fusion of  thought,  the  strange  mixture  of  anarchy  and  slavery, 
show  the  need  of  an  answer,  and  our  account  of  the  mystical  way 
urges  me  to  attempt  it.  In  its  more  superficial  aspect,  liberty  is 
freedom  to  follow  reason  unhindered  by  external  violence.  In  a 
deeper  sense  it  is  this  same  freedom  to  follow  reason  unhindered 
by  the  force  of  our  own  lower  passions  and  desires.  Bondage 
to  the  latter  is,  of  course,  a far  worse  slavery  than  any  slavery 
to  the  former,  since  it  confines  the  inner  life  of  the  soul,  not  merely 
its  external  manifestation.  Everything,  therefore,  that  enables 
us  to  follow  reason  1 sets  us  free,  everything  that  hinders  us  from 
following  reason  enslaves.  No  fallen  man,  however,  can  follow 
reason  without  the  help  of  an  external  law  and  authority. 
Freedom  from  law  and  authority  means  slavery,  for  it  involves 
more  or  less  of  inability  to  follow  reason,  an  inability  due  in  part 
to  ignorance  of  what  right  reason  prescribes,  in  part  to  the  innate 
tendency  of  the  fallen  will  to  follow  irrational  affections.  But 
every  state  being  merely  human,  an  assemblage  of  more  or  less 
sinful  and  ignorant  men  is  in  greater  or  lesser  degree  divergent 
from  right  reason,  and  may  therefore,  indeed  often  does,  prescribe 
what  is  opposed  to  it.  Such  laws  and  commands  truly  enslave 
the  subject  who  submits  to  them  by  hindering  him  from  following 
in  his  conduct  the  dictates  of  reason.  Nevertheless  the  slavery 
so  incurred  is  far  less  than  the  slavery  which  would  result  from 
anarchy.  Therefore  the  authority  of  the  State  must  be  main- 
tained and  obeyed,  save  where  it  plainly  conflicts  with  the  law 

1 When  I say  reason,  I include  superrational  intuition. 

L 


162  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  God  or  deprives  the  individual  of  some  inalienable  right — 
that  is,  some  power  or  possession  necessary  for  the  due  operation 
of  a rational  soul  life.  Nevertheless  this  necessary  evil  may  and 
should  be  minimised  by  restricting  the  power  and  scope  of  the 
State  to  such  authority  over  the  individual,  as  shall  prevent  one 
individual  from  injuring  another  (the  police  and  judicial  function), 
and  shall  secure  to  every  individual  equal  opportunity  to  develop 
his  capacities  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  particular  office  (a  limited 
function  of  social  reform  and  regulation).  Higher,  less  limited 
authority  can  safely  be  entrusted  to  that  society  alone  which  has 
been  instituted  by  God  Himself  and  endowed  by  Him  with  in- 
fallibility— namely,  the  Catholic  Church — a society,  moreover, 
whose  authority  is  based  not  on  brute  force,  but  upon  the  free 
obedience  of  conscience.  By  submission  to  the  State  the  individual 
soul  is,  or  should  be,  freed  from  the  bondage  of  irrational  inter- 
ference by  his  fellows,  whether  positive  by  aggression  on  his 
rights,  or  negative  by  the  refusal  of  the  due  opportunity  which  he 
requires  to  follow  out  the  vocation  which  his  reason  assigns  him. 
By  submission  to  the  Church,  so  that  it  be  internal — that  is,  of 
the  free  will — not  merely  external,  for  some  natural  end,  or  under 
legal  compulsion,  the  soul  is  freed  from  the  imprisonment  of  a 
radical  aversion  of  will  from  the  Unlimited  God  to  the  limited 
creature.  This  is,  however,  but  a beginning.  If  the  soul  wills 
the  close  union  with  God  which  is  the  end  of  the  mystic  way,  it 
is  not  sufficient  merely  to  perform  or  omit  those  acts  whose 
performance  or  omission  the  Church  prescribes  under  pain  of  sin. 
That  soul  must  submit  its  will  in  all  things  to  the  will  of  God. 
Thus  alone  can  it  be  freed  from  all  the  limitations  of  creaturely 
attachment.  In  proportion  as  the  soul  effects  this  submission 
or  will-union  it  becomes  ever  freer  to  follow  the  voice  of  con- 
science illuminated  by  grace  and  later  by  mystical  intuition, 
a voice  which  tells  her  plainly  that  the  infinite  and  Absolute 
Divine  Goodness  is  the  only  true  end  of  her  actions  and  life.  But 
we  have  now  traced  freedom  to  a deeper  source  than  that  reached 
by  our  definition  of  freedom  as  the  unimpeded  following  of  reason. 
For  we  have  shown  that  this  following  of  right  reason  leads  to 
perfect  will-union  with  God,  and  that  this  perfect  will-union  is 
perfect  freedom,  because  it  is  the  complete  emancipation  of  the 
soul  from  the  bondage  of  the  limitations  necessarily  inherent  in 
creatures.  Wholly  to  submit,  to  inone  the  will  with  the  will  of 
God  is  to  become  perfectly  free,  because  it  is  the  destruction 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  163 

of  all  limits.  For  the  will-union  of  love  frees,  in  proportion  as  it 
releases  the  will  from  limited  ends.  The  lowest  and  most  limited 
are,  of  course,  the  animal  desires,  and  the  sensual  man  is  therefore 
the  greatest  slave,  or,  to  speak  more  exactly,  his  prison  is  the 
narrowest.  Those  whose  will  is  set  on  more  unlimited  because 
more  spiritual  objects  have  a far  more  spacious  prison-house. 
They  are  like  a dethroned  monarch  allowed  the  range  of  an  entire 
estate  or  island.  Nevertheless  their  slavery  is  often  more  intense, 
their  prison  far  more  difficult  of  escape.  For  the  very  fact  that 
the  object  of  the  will  is  now  less  limited  makes  it  more  satisfactory 
and  more  attractive  to  the  entire  soul.  Hence  the  will  of  such  a 
man  is  often  more  firmly  attached  to  his  less  limited  good  than 
the  will  of  the  sensual  man  to  his  more  narrowly  limited  good. 
Divine  charity  alone  gives  true  freedom  to  the  will,  detaching  it 
ever  more  completely  from  any  and  every  limited  good,  and  fixing 
it  ever  more  closely  on  the  unlimited  Good.  This  is  the  freedom 
of  the  sons  of  God,  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  Who  is  the 
eternal  love  of  Absolute  Goodness  for  Absolute  Goodness.  It  is 
a freedom  which  is  perfect  obedience,  obedience  indeed  to  the 
dictates  of  reason,  but  essentially  and  primarily  obedience  to  the 
Personal  Will  of  God  which  the  understanding  supernaturally 
enlightened  by  grace  and  later  by  mystical  intuition,  recognises 
as  the  Supieme  Good  and  End  of  creatures.  In  this  life  this 
higher  and  more  complete  obedience  which  is  the  supreme  freedom 
is  greatly  assisted  by  obedience  to  earthly  superiors  and  directors 
whose  guidance  on  the  mystic  way  is  therefore  most  valuable. 
Even  if  these  should  err  in  the  matter  of  their  command,  so  long 
as  sin  is  not  involved,  should  order  what  is  not  in  itself  in  most 
perfect  accord  with  God’s  will,  it  is  His  will  that  the  soul  should 
obey  for  the  sake  of  the  general  good  thereby  obtained  of  the 
destruction  of  the  essentially  limited  and  limiting  self-will  of  the 
soul.  Even  tyranny  and  oppression  are  often  used  by  God  as 
instruments  to  effect  the  liberation  of  the  soul  from  this  inner 
bondage  to  limiting  desires,  and  limiting  self-will,  a bondage  in- 
calculably closer  and  more  powerful  than  any  external  slavery.1 
For  self-will  is  the  choice  of  a limited  good  which  is  immediately 
pleasurable  to  the  soul,  or  more  radically  its  own  supposed  good 
as  apart  from  the  Absolute  Good.  God’s  will  which  is  identical 
with  His  being  is  the  sovereign  good  of  all,  and  therefore  of  the 

1 Nevertheless  we  ought  to  oppose  tyranny  because  (i)  it  often  does  enslave 
the  soul  of  its  victims  ; (2)  it  is  always  the  spiritual  ruin  of  those  who  practise  it. 


164  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

individual  soul.  Therefore  Avhen  self-will  is  destroyed,  and  God’s 
will  is  perfectly  chosen,  the  will  is  wholly  free  to  attain  its  true 
good  and  end,  which  it  has  perversely  sought  from  the  outset. 
In  the  possession  of  this  boundless  Good  it  enjoys  perfect  freedom. 
As  mystical  will-union  through  love  thus  emancipates  the  will 
from  limited  ends,  mystical  intuition  emancipates  the  spiritual 
consciousness  or  understanding  from  limited  apprehensions. 
That  intuition  reveals  the  Unlimited  as  the  ultimate  and  the  solely 
adequate,  the  one  complete  and  wholly  evident  Object  of  know- 
ledge. Thus  in  the  highest  sense  is  Our  Lord’s  promise  fulfilled 
when  this  sovereign  truth  revealed  in  mystical  intuition  makes 
us  free.  The  understanding  that  accepts  as  ultimate  the  par- 
ticulars of  sense  is  the  most  completely  enslaved.  Understand- 
ings that  are  conversant  with  far-reaching  hypotheses,  first 
principles  and  spiritual  ideas  are  in  various  degrees  freer.  The 
understanding  that  enjoys  direct  intuition  of  God  is  truly  free, 
for  it  has  attained  the  Absolute  Truth,  the  source  and  ground  of 
all  the  more  or  less  limited  truths  of  created  being.  In  this  life 
we  cannot  comprehend  this  Absolute  Truth,  for  we  cannot  attain 
clear  knowledge  of  the  Godhead.  Therefore  the  understanding  is 
not  wholly  free  as  it  will  be  free  in  the  beatific  vision.  Faith, 
even  in  its  highest  degree  and  most  complete  infusion,  the  veiled 
intuition  of  the  mystic,  apprehends  Absolute  truth  obscurely 
under  a veil.  This  veiled  intuition  is,  however,  an  intellectual 
freedom  beyond  that  possessed  by  any  other  man,  even  by  the 
philosopher,  who  is  bound  by  distinct  concepts  ultimately  sense- 
derived  and  therefore  limited,  limited,  moreover,  in  proportion  to 
their  distinctness.  By  this  double  emancipation  of  the  radical 
will  and  understanding  the  centre  of  the  soul  is  set  free  to  possess 
that  perfect  union  and  fruition  of  God  for  which  it  was  created 
and  sanctified,  undetained  by  the  limits  of  creaturely  attachments 
and  ideas.  Thus  is  the  mystic  way,  the  way,  the  only  way,  to 
perfect  freedom. 

(8)  Unification  : Increasing  Simplicity . 

We  have  seen  that  God  is  absolute  unity  and  simplicity,  because 
His  infinite  multiplicity  is  not  exclusive  but  inclusive.  It  was 
pointed  out  at  the  same  time  that  as  the  scale  of  created  being 
mounts  Godward  the  unity  increases,  the  internal  organic  unity 
which  harmonises,  subordinates  and,  so  to  speak,  absorbs  an  ever- 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  165 

increasing  complexity  or  multiplicity.  The  same  law  holds  good 
of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  individual  soul.  The  need  for  unifica- 
tion both  in  practice  and  in  theory,  unification  alike  of  will  aims 
and  of  knowledge,  is  imperiously  insistent  in  the  soul  of  man.  It 
exists  even  in  the  natural  order  when  the  mystic  way  is  altogether 
unknown.  In  practical  life  a man  must  have  one  dominant  aim, 
one  dominant  affection,  if  his  life  is  to  possess  any  degree  of 
stability,  if  his  work  is  to  attain  any  degree  of  successful  achieve- 
ment. It  is  the  same  with  speculation.  The  aim  and  achieve- 
ment of  the  sciences  is  the  unification  of  the  data  which  constitute 
its  subject  matter.  Philosophy  attempts 1 to  unify  the  first 
principles  of  all  the  subordinate  sciences  in  one  harmonious  self- 
consistent  view  of  reality  as  a whole.  Art  creates  such  sensible 
harmonies — that  is,  unifications — of  form,  colour  or  sound  as  will 
convey  to  souls  duly  attuned  the  spiritual  and  therefore  more 
perfect  harmony  or  unification  which  underlies  the  sensible  and 
therefore  more  imperfect,  because  more  exterior,  unifications  and 
harmonies.  But  it  is  only  in  the  order  of  grace  and  in  its  sovereign 
manifestation,  mystical  experience,  that  this  need  of  unification 
can  attain  full  satisfaction.  For  in  mystical  experience  the  soul 
attains  a supernatural  union  with  the  Absolute  Unity  of  an 
infinite  manifold,  from  Whom  all  multiplicity  proceeds  and  in 
Whom  it  is  all  made  one.  Moreover,  as  the  soul  draws  nearer  to 
God  and  this  union  increases,  its  operations  become  more  unified, 
because  their  subject  matter  is  increasingly  simple.  In  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  life  of  grace  the  soul’s  strength  is  not  com- 
pletely focused  on  God.  The  will  is  divided  among  many  objects, 
not  willed  in  order  to  God  ; the  consciousness  is  similarly  dis- 
tracted by  a multiplicity  of  divers  objects,  unharmonised  and 
mutually  competing  for  the  soul’s  attention.  Even  the  soul’s 
prayer-energy  is  divided  among  various  images,  by  whose  aid 
alone  it  approaches  God,  Who  is  now  envisaged  under  one  image, 
now  under  another.  It  is  true  that  from  the  first  there  exists  in 
the  central  trinity,  the  centre  and  the  radical  consciousness  and 
the  radical  will  proceeding  from  the  centre,  a unity  of  direction 
towards  the  unlimited,  towards  God.  This  unity,  however,  is  not 
carried  into  act,  but  remains  an  unfulfilled  potency,  a beginning 
never  carried  out.  The  life  of  the  soul  is  thus  like  the  water  of»a 
fountain,  which  begins  indeed  to  rise  in  one  jet  from  the  pipe,  but 

1 An  attempt  which,  as  we  saw,  can  never  be  completely  successful  (see 
Chapter  III). 


166  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

is  soon  dissipated  into  a shower  of  separate  streams  and  drops 
pursuing  each  its  own  independent  course.  The  energy  of  the 
soul,  instead  of  ascending  undivided  to  God,  is  distracted  among 
the  variety  of  creatures  known  and  willed  in  and  for  themselves. 
The  mutually  exclusive  limits  of  these  created  ends  and  objects 
split  up  the  soul  life  and  dissipate  its  force.  All  this  ununified 
and  consequently  distracting  multiplicity  gradually  disappears 
as  the  soul  draws  closer  to  God,  as  its  union  with  Him  becomes 
more  intimate  and  more  continuous.  Finally,  nothing  is  willed 
save  in  order  to  God,  nothing  contemplated  by  the  understanding 
in  which  He  is  not  beheld.  The  soul’s  prayer  is  unified  in  one 
direct  obscure  contemplation  of  God,  and  in  one  immediate  direc- 
tion and  union  of  the  will  to  and  with  Him.  This  principle  is 
plainly  stated  by  St  John  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  the  second 
book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  “ I say,  therefore,”  such 
are  his  words,  “ with  respect  to  all  these  apprehensions  and 
imaginary  visions,  and  other  forms  or  species  of  whatever  kind 
they  may  be  or  images  or  particular  apprehensions  of  any  kind  ” 
( i.e . distinct  intellectual  concepts  about  God),  “ whether  false  as 
coming  from  the  devil,  or  known  to  be  true  as  coming  from  God, 
that  the  understanding  is  not  to  perplex  itself  about  them,  nor 
feed  itself  upon  them  ; the  soul  must  not  willingly  accept  them 
nor  cleave  to  them  in  order  that  it  may  be  detached  and  naked, 
pure  and  simple  without  particular  mode  or  fashion  of  any  kind, 
which  is  the  condition  of  the  divine  union.  The  reason  of  this  is 
that  all  these  forms  are  never  represented  so  as  to  be  laid  hold  of, 
but  under  certain  ways  and  limitations  ; and  the  divine  wisdom 
to  which  the  understanding  is  to  be  united  admits  of  no  such 
particular  ways  or  forms,  neither  can  it  be  comprehended  under 
any  limitation  or  distinct  and  particular  concept,  because  it  is  all 
pureness  and  simplicity.  However,  if  two  extremes  are  to  be 
united  together,  such  as  the  soul  and  the  divine  Wisdom,  it  is 
necessary  that  they  should  meet  under  a certain  kind  of  mutual 
resemblance  ; and  hence  the  soul  must  also  be  pure  and  simple, 
not  limited  by,  nor  adhering  to  any  particular  concept  and  un- 
modified by  any  limited  form,  species  or  image.  As  God  is  not 
comprehended  under  any  form  or  image  or  particular  concept,  so 
the  soul  also,  if  it  is  to  be  united  to  Him,  must  not  be  under  the 
power  of  any  particular  or  distinct  concept.”  In  short,  the  mani- 
fold of  distinct  and  particular  apprehensions  must  give  place  to  a 
unified  though  obscure  apprehension  of  the  God  Who  is  Absolute 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  167 

Unity.  Thus  is  the  mystical  process  a process  from  multiplicity 
to  unity.  This  unity,  however,  is  not  a barren  unity — a unity 
attained  by  the  cutting  away  of  all  the  constituents  of  experience 
save  one,  a unity  like  the  unity  of  almost  contentless  units.  The 
enemies  of  the  mystical  life  regard  its  unity  in  this  light,  but  that 
is  their  calumny.  Within  the  unity  there  is  an  infinite  variety  of 
acts  of  will  and  of  apprehensions,  perfectly  blended  in  one.  As 
Baron  von  Hiigel  points  out,  the  more  wholly  an  object  occupies 
and  absorbs  the  attention  of  the  soul,  the  more  are  all  the  soul’s 
powers  unified  in  a unity  composed  of  a multiplicity  of  operations 
so  subtle  as  to  be  subconscious.1  When  the  Object  is  Absolute 
Goodness  and  therefore  all-satisfying  and  all-absorbing,  Absolute 
Unity,  focusing  in  that  unity  all  that  is  positive  in  the  incalcul- 
able variety  of  created  things,  this  unification  of  the  soul  is 
complete.  Limits  divide.  Hence  occupation  with  the  limited 
is  divided  or  externally  multiple.  The  unlimited  unites.  There- 
fore concentration  on  the  Infinite  harmonises  in  one  act  all  the 
multiplicity  of  the  soul.  On  the  other  hand,  the  one  act  preached 
by  the  Quietists  was  a contentless  or  bare  unity.  That  is  why  it 
was  condemned  by  the  Church.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  Quietism  is 
the  ape  of  true  mysticism.  For  the  Quietist  imitates  the  external 
phraseology  of  mysticism,  but  fails  to  understand  her  inner  spirit, 
to  follow  her  real  practice. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  case  of  the  individual  soul  the  multiplicity 
of  different  interests  and  functions  of  which  our  soul  life  is  com- 
posed is  usually  diminished  as  the  soul  draws  nearer  to  God.  The 
reason  of  this,  however,  is  that  this  multiplicity  was  by  reason  of 
its  externality  exclusive,  dividing  and  distracting.  The  inner 
substance,  however,  of  these  multiple  external  activities  is  not 
lost  but  fused  in  the  interior  unity  of  the  mystical  life.  If,  for 
example,  a soul  loses  its  love  of  art  or  natural  beauty,  it  is  because 
the  inner  substance  or  spiritual  significance  of  these  has  been 
abstracted  from  the  external  form  in  which  it  was  first  conveyed, 
whose  limits  excluded  other  psychical  activities,  and  is  now 
possessed  in  a more  spiritual  and  interior  manner,  in  which  the 
substance  of  each  distinctive  activity  is  one  with  that  of  the  others, 
while  subsisting  in  full  unimpaired  being.  For  the  more  spiritual 
is  the  more  purely  positive,  though  God  alone  is  pure  positivity, 
and  therefore  one  spiritual  being  does  not  exclude  another  in  the 
same  way  that  one  material  unit  excludes  another  material  unit. 

1 Mystical  Religion. 


168  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

I cannot  contemplate  a beautiful  painting  and  a beautiful  land- 
scape in  one  and  the  selfsame  contemplation.  The  mystic  can 
have  the  fruition  of  the  spiritual  realities,  of  which  the  picture  and 
the  landscape  are  the  respective  embodiments  or  sacraments,  in 
one  and  the  same  contemplation,  for  both  are  but  aspects  of  one 
spiritual  or  ideal  reality,  and  only  exclude  one  another  when 
externalised  on  the  lower  plane  of  mutually  exclusive  material 
objects.  Since  God  is  Absolute  Unity,  the  activity  of  the  God- 
possessing  and  God-possessed  soul  is  unified  in  proportion  to  the 
degree  of  the  divine  possession.  Thus  is  the  mystical  way  essenti- 
ally a Unitive  way,  and  most  completely  unitive  is  that  final  stage 
known  by  this  name. 

(9)  Purification. 

The  operations  of  the  soul  in  mystical  union  are  increasingly 
pure  energisings  to  God,  undistracted  and  undiluted  by  created 
images  and  ends.  This  purity  is  a concomitant  aspect  of  the  soul’s 
unification  and  of  its  release  from  limits,  even  as  the  Divine  Purity 
is  a concomitant  aspect  of  the  Divine  Unity  and  the  Divine 
Infinity.  The  gradual  purification  of  the  soul  will  occupy  us  at 
great  length  hereafter.  Here  I would  but  point  out  the  general 
law  that  the  increasing  unification  of  the  soul  life  and  activity, 
together  with  their  increasing  emancipation  from  limits,  involves 
their  increasing  purification  from  the  multiple  and  limiting 
attachments  to  creatures  that  sullied  the  purity  of  the  soul’s 
concentrated  force  of  Godward  love.  In  the  second  volume  of 
Modern  Painters  Ruskin  maintains  that  purity  is  essentially 
energy  or  life  unimpeded.1  Spiritual  purity  is  thus  the  energy  or 
life  of  the  soul  unimpeded  in  its  outgoing  to  God  by  the  limits 
of  created  attachments  immediately  or  mediately  derived  from 
sensible  objects.  St  John  regards  purity  from  this  point  of  view 
in  the  twenty- fifth  chapter  of  the  third  book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount 
Carmel.  Purity  is  there  treated  as  the  free  actuation  of  the  soul 
in  and  to  God  in  a fulness  of  spiritual  life  not  repressed  and  dis- 
persed by  sensible  attachments.  These  attachments  repress  this 
Godward  lifefand  energy  of  the  spirit  by  confining  our  psychical 
activities  anddife  within  the  limits  of  the  sensible  and  the  created. 
They  disperse’That  fulness  of  life  by  dissipating  its  energy  among 
a multiplicity  of  objects.  The  intention  of  the  will  and  the  appre- 
hension of  the  understanding,  pure  in  source  owing  to  their 

1 Vol.  ii.,  chap.  ix. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  169 

primitive  unity,  in  man’s  innateiGodward  outgoing  and  need,1  are 
defiled  in  their  outward  flow  by  attachments  to  creatures  and  to 
particular  images  and  concepts  which  limit  the  will  so  that  it  no 
longer  wills  the  Divine  Union,  and  in  which  the  understanding 
rests,  so  that  it  is  held  back  on  its  onward  course  to  the  Absolute 
all-explanatory  truth  it  would  fain  apprehend.  This  is  the 
double  impurity  of  sin  and  its  consequences,  in  their  twofold  result 
of  blindness  of  understanding  and  powerlessness  of  will.  The 
work  of  grace  in  the  entire  mystic  way  is  to  get  rid  of  these  stains, 
not  of  sins  alone,  but  of  all  undue  will  attachments  and  irrational 
acceptance  of  images  and  distinct  concepts,  as  sufficient  principles 
of  knowledge.  Of  this  present  impurity  of  the  soul  in  its  undue 
attachment  to  the  limited,  and  in  its  exclusive  multiplicity  thence 
resulting,  and  of  the  essential  purity  of  its  central  being,  we  have  a 
beautiful  image  in  the  tenth  book  of  Plato’s  Republic.  “ Would 
you  see  the  soul  as  she  really  is,  not  as  we  now  behold  her,  marred 
by  communion  with  the  body  and  other  miseries  ? ” 2 (Plato 
was,  indeed,  wrong  in  regarding  this  bodily  incarnation  as  an  evil 
or  the  cause  of  evil.  The  true  cause  is  that  the  particular  know- 
ledge and  desires  due  to  the  senses  have  through  our  lack  of  grace 
more  or  less  closely  imprisoned  the  soul  in  their  limits  so  that  it 
cannot  as  it  ought,  and  in  sanctified  souls  does,  transcend  these 
limits.)  “ You  must  contemplate  her  with  the  eye  of  reason,  in 
her  original  purity,  and  then  her  beauty  will  be  revealed.  We 
must  remember  that  we  have  seen  her  only  in  a condition  which 
may  be  compared  to  that  of  the  sea-god  Glaucus,  whose  original 
image  can  hardly  be  discerned  because  his  natural  members  are 
broken  off,  and  crushed  and  damaged  by  the  waves  in  all  sorts  of 
ways,  and  encrustations  have  grown  over  them  of  seaweed  and 
shells  and  stones,  so  that  he  is  more  like  some  monster  than  he  is 
to  his  own  natural  form.  And  the  soul  which  we  behold  is  in  a 
similar  condition,  disfigured  by  a thousand  ills.  But  not  there, 
not  there  must  we  look.  What  then  ? At  her  love  of  wisdom. 
Let  us  see  whom  she  affects,  and  what  society  and  converse  she 
seeks  in  virtue  of  her  near  kindred  with  the  immortal  and  eternal 
and  divine  ” (that  is,  let  us  consider  that  inmost  will-apprehension 

1 An  outgoing  and  need  completed  and  superabundantly  gratified  by  super- 
natural grace  and  glory. 

2 On  account  of  the  long  parenthesis  I have  taken  the  liberty  of  slightly 
altering  the  wording  of  Plato  and  his  translator.  But  I have,  of  course,  scrupu- 
lously respected  his  sense. 


170  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  man,  rooted  in  his  central  self,  wherein  God  is  especially  im- 
manent, which  is  especially  made  after  His  image,  and  which, 
therefore,  is  ever  directed  to  absolute  truth  and  unlimited  good- 
ness— that  is,  to  God — though  in  sinful  souls  out  of  grace  this  nisus 
is  rendered  ineffectual  by  the  soul’s  bondage  to  the  lower  desires 
and  images  that  are  essentially  limited).  “ How  different  she 
would  become  if  wholly  following  this  superior  principle  ” (i.e. 
living  an  interior  life,  following  reason  and  the  will  for  absolute 
good)  “ and  borne  by  a divine  impulse  ” (this  surely  is  fulfilled  in 
sanctifying  grace,  and  its  consequence  the  indwelling  and  sanctifi- 
cation of  the  Holy  Ghost)  “ out  of  the  stream  in  which  she  now  is, 
and  disengaged  from  the  stones  and  shells  and  things  of  earth  and 
rock  which  in  wild  variety  spring  up  around  her  because  she  feeds 
upon  earth,  and  is  overgrown  by  the  good  things  of  this  life,  as 
they  are  termed  ” (the  sense-given  particulars  and  desires). 
“ Then  you  would  see  her  as  she  is,  and  know  whether  she  has  one 
shape  only  or  many,  or  what  her  nature  is.”  The  soul  impure  in 
its  division  among  mutually  exclusive,  because  essentially  limited, 
attachments  becomes  pure  in  its  unified  actuation  to  and  in  the 
Unlimited  Godhead,  detached  and  therefore  pure  from  all  re- 
straining and  distracting  limits.  This  gradual  purification  is, 
then,  a fundamental  aspect  of  the  mystical  way — the  result  of  the 
progressive  unification  of  the  soul  by  its  increasing  union  with 
God,  Who  is  Absolute  Purity,  because  He  is  One  Simple  Act 
unlimited  and  therefore  indivisible. 

(10)  The  Atlainment  of  Peace. 

An  aspect  of  the  mystical  way  grounded  primarily  in  its  unifi- 
cation, the  aspect  whose  abuse  has  given  its  very  name  to  Quiet- 
ism, is  a gradual  attainment  of  interior  peace,  repose  or  quiet.  In 
mysticism  this  repose  or  quiet  is  understood  in  two  senses.  There 
is  first  of  all  the  repose  that  is  the  direct  result  of  unity,  and  is 
opposed  to  the  restlessness  of  divided  aims  and  attention.  If 
there  is  no  unity  of  aim  in  life  there  can  be  no  peace  in  that  life — 
except  a false  and  short-lived  peace,  when  for  a time  the  activity 
of  the  soul  is  concentrated  on  some  one  object.  God,  however,  is 
the  one  only  end  that  is  wholly  satisfying  to  the  human  soul. 
Therefore  the  soul  that  does  not  make  God  the  supreme  end  of  its 
life  cannot  have  perfect  and  perpetual  peace.  If,  indeed,  a created 
end  be  a wide  and  lofty  end — an  object  rich  in  content,  and  spiri  ual 
in  nature- — its  deliberate  pursuit  as  the  supreme  end  of  life,  in- 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  171 

volving,  as  it  must,  the  subordination  to  that  end  of  all  other  ends 
and  activities,  will  produce  great  and  often  long-continued  peace, 
because  it  will  so  largely  unify  life,  and  the  peace  will  be  in  propor- 
tion to  the  unity  achieved.  It  may  indeed  be  that,  if  that  end  of 
life  is  very  high  and  wide,  the  soul  may  achieve  a very  great  and 
on  the  whole  permanent  peace.  Nevertheless  its  peace  can  never 
be  perfect  or  wholly  secure,  because  the  end  cannot  be  entirely 
satisfactory  nor  can  the  soul  be  sure  of  attaining  it.  Indeed  the 
loftier  the  end  is  the  surer  the  soul  may  be  of  its  non-attainment. 
Moreover,  if  the  end  were  attained,  the  soul  could  not  enjoy  for 
ever  the  prize  of  its  struggle.  Death  at  least  would  take  it  away. 
Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  know  that  God  is  the  supreme  and 
sole  satisfying  end,  and  yet  do  not  choose  Him  as  the  supreme  end 
of  their  life,  but  will  created  ends  irreconcilable  with  His  will,  can 
never  achieve  any  measure  of  true  internal  peace.  They  cannot 
unify  their  lives  by  an  end  known  to  reason  to  be  unsatisfactory. 
It  is  indeed  a practical  impossibility  to  achieve  a complete  unifi- 
cation of  life  around  a created  end,  prevented  as  it  is  by  its  inher- 
ent limitations  from  affording  satisfaction  to  all  the  desires  and 
aspects  of  the  soul.  Hence  there  is  a corresponding  lack  of  com- 
plete repose  or  peace  in  all  save  those  whose  will  is  wholly  fixed 
upon  God.  “ The  main  cause,”  says  Professor  Hoffding,  “ of 
fatigue  and  exhaustion  in  life  is  unrest  and  distraction  of  mind. 
We  are  influenced  on  so  many  sides  that  it  is  difficult  for  us  to 
collect  our  thoughts  ; we  are  drawn  in  so  many  directions  that  we 
find  it  difficult  to  focus  our  will  on  any  one  aim  ; so  many  different 
and  changing  feelings  are  aroused  that  the  inner  harmony  of  the 
mind  is  exposed  to  the  danger  of  dissolution  ” ( Philosophy  of 
Religion,  II.  iii.,  p.  120).  We  can  see  this  truth  writ  large 
in  states  and  civilisations.  Only  in  proportion  as  there  is  one 
national  aim  is  there  national  peace.  A striking  instance  of  this 
was  seen  at  the  outbreak  of  the  late  war.  Such  a unified  aim  is, 
however,  never  realised  completely,  seldom  even  partially.  Hence 
a permanent  state  of  internal  strife,  strife  of  classes  and  strife  of 
parties.  In  proportion  as  a civilisation  has  before  it  one  supreme 
end,  or  harmony  of  ends,  it  enjoys  a satisfaction  and  a peace  which, 
if  perfect,  would  express  it  itself  outwardly  in  external  peace  and 
union  between  the  states  who  share  in  that  civilisation,  and  which 
when  present  in  any  large  degree  expresses  itself  in  the  predomi- 
nant peace  and  satisfaction  and  successful  achievement  of  the 
individuals  who  partake  in  that  civilisation.  Mediaeval  civilisa- 


172  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

tion  possessed  this  unity  in  a very  high  degree.  Hence  the  high 
degree  of  inward  peace,  of  spiritual  certainty,  security  and  satis- 
faction, and  of  unhesitating,  joyous  and  mutually  co-operative 
achievement  attained  by  its  members.  Because  modem  civilisa- 
tion lacks  this  unity  of  end,  or  harmony  of  ends,  Matthew  Arnold’s 
complaint  is  bitterly  true  of  it : 

This  strange  disease  of  modern  life 
With  its  sick  hurry,  its  divided  aims. 

Strong  the  infection  of  our  mental  strife 
Which  though  it  gives  no  bliss,  yet  spoils  for  rest, 

And  we  should  win  thee  from  thy  own  fair  life, 

Like  us  distracted  and  like  us  unblest. 

The  Scholar  Gipsy. 

It  was  for  this  reason  that  Plato  was  so  insistent  on  the  need  of 
unity  both  in  the  state  and  in  the  individuals  composing  it. 

In  the  conception  of  Plato  unity  that  is  the  organic  unification 
of  a multiplicity  of  functions  is  the  principle  of  stability  and 
internal  peace.  The  justice  of  this  view  is  borne  out  not  alone  in 
the  social  organism,  but  in  the  life  of  the  individual  soul,  especially 
in  that  spiritual  grace-life  with  which  we  are  here  concerned.  As 
the  soul  unifies  ever  more  completely  its  spiritual  life  and  its 
prayer,  that  life  is  the  achievement  of  an  inward  peace,  and  that 
prayer  a prayer  of  quiet.  The  soul  is  in  a state  of  peace  in  so  far 
as  the  will  is  unified  by  will-union  with  God. 

Thus  as  the  soul  progresses  in  the  way  of  grace  and  reaches 
mystical  union,  with  that  union  increases  her  peace,  for  peace  and 
union  increase  pari  passu.  Moreover,  the  attention  of  the  soul  in 
prayer  is  progressively  unified  by  increasing  freedom  from  the 
distraction  of  limited  and  therefore  diverse  images  and  concepts. 
In  proportion  as  this  unification  of  attention  is  accomplished,  and 
prayer  becomes  a simple  attention  of  the  will  to  God  as  the  Un- 
limited Good,  prayer  becomes  a prayer  of  peace  and  repose,  peace 
from  the  mental  strife  and  distraction  of  diverse  apprehensions. 
In  this  sense,  therefore,  is  the  mystical  way  a growth  in  peace — - 
an  increasing  absence  of  distracting  desires  and  thoughts.  The 
consummation  of  the  mystical  way  is  also  the  perfection  of  peace, 
because  it  is  the  perfect  union  with  the  Eternal  and  the  Unmoved. 
We  can  never  rest  in  creatures  because  they  all  pass  away,  save 
indeed  those  found  finally  in  and  through  God,  Since  mutability 
is  the  universal  law  of  this  lower  world,  those  who  set  their  love 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  173 

on  things  here  below  set  their  love  on  things  that  pass  or  fail.  For 
such  there  can  be  no  true  peace.  As,  however,  the  soul’s  union 
with  God  becomes  closer  and  its  will  is  fixed  on  Him  alone,  it  is 
delivered  from  the  dominion  of  change  by  this  union  and  love  of 
the  Eternally  Unchanging.  Even  sufferings,  trials  and  aridities 
cannot  deprive  the  soul  in  the  supreme  mystical  union  of  the  in- 
ward peace  that  is  the  result  of  a central  union  fruition  of  the 
Immutable  Deity.  In  this  state  of  perfect  union  the  soul  is  like 
the  ocean.  Whatever  storms  vex  the  surface,  in  the  depths  there 
is  perpetual  calm.  In  this  sense  also  is  the  mystic  way  a way  of 
increasing  peace. 

The  mystics,  however,  understand  peace  in  another  sense,  that 
of  passivity  as  opposed  to  action.  Here  it  is  that  Quietism  erred 
by  urging  the  soul  to  do  nothing  whatever  in  prayer,  but  simply  to 
wait  on  God  in  absolute  passivity.  But  the  orthodox  mystics  * use 
very  strong  language  about  the  passivity  of  the  soul  in  mystical 
prayer,  one  of  whose  stages  is  thence  designated  the  Prayer  of 
Quiet.  Their  language  is  indeed  so  emphatic  that  at  first  sight 
it  seems  simply  Quietistic.  It  bears,  however,  a very  different 
sense.  The  orthodox  mystics  bid  us  cease  to  act  only  when  God 
acts  in  our  souls.  The  Quietists  tend,  in  proportion  as  they  are 
complete  Quietists,  to  bid  every  soul  adopt  passivity  from  the 
outset.  What  is  meat  to  the  mystic  may  well  be  poison  to  the 
ordinary  soul.  The  Quietist  position  amounts  to  saying  that 
because  when  your  food  is  cooked  you  have  but  to  eat  it,  there- 
fore you  must  not  cook  it.  When  the  sold  acting  through  and  in 
obedience  to  grace  has  broken  down  to  a certain  degree  the  barriers 
of  undue  adherence  to  and  occupation  with  the  finite,  when  it  has 
attained  by  simplifying  its  spiritual  attention  a certain  degree  of 
the  unitary  peace  spoken  of  above,  the  peace  due  to  absence  of 
distracting  multiplicity  in  prayer,  it  becomes  conscious  of  God’s 
grace  at  work  in  itself,  of  God’s  Presence  in  its  centre.  It  has 
then,  of  course,  but  to  attend  to  that  grace  and  Presence.  But 
until  that  time  arrives,  which  is  when  God  wills — for  His  grace 
works  at  no  uniform  or  calculable  rate — it  must  prepare  for  it  by 
its  own  activity.  Moreover,  this  manifestation  in  the  soul  of  the 
Divine  Presence  is  but  intermittent,  at  least  until  the  highest 
stages  are  reached.  In  the  intervals  activity  even  in  prayer  is  as 
necessary  as  ever.  When,  however,  God  speaks  the  soul  must  do 
nothing  but  listen,  when  He  appears  the  soul  must  simply  behold, 
when  He  gives  the  soul  must  do  nothing  save  receive.  This  is 


174  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

surely  obvious,  and  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  seemingly 
Quietistic  passages  of  St  John  and  other  mystical  writers.  Far 
different  is  the  Quietist  teaching  that  the  soul,  at  least  in  prayer, 
must  never  do  anything  save  listen,  behold  and  receive,  even  when 
there  is  nothing  to  be  heard,  beheld  and  received.  This  false 
generalisation  of  the  mystical  teaching  on  passivity  makes  common- 
sense  into  absurdity,  truth  into  the  deadliest  of  falsehoods.  Let 
us  not  be  surprised,  therefore,  if  sayings  of  St  John  of  the  Cross  are 
condemned  on  the  lips  of  Molinos,  since  Molinos  applies  them  with 
a scope  and  sense  which  St  John,  indeed  any  orthodox  mystic, 
would  have  entirely  repudiated. 

Nevertheless,  however  we  restrict  the  application  of  St 
John’s  teaching  of  passivity,  it  still  requires  careful  attention  if 
it  is  not  to  be  misunderstood.  If  I am  absorbed  by  complete 
attention  to  an  object  externally  presented,  I am  in  a state  of 
passive  receptivity,  and  the  more  completely  absorbed  my  attention 
is,  the  more  complete  is  the  receptivity  or  passivity.1  But  that 
receptivity  is  itself  an  intense  actuation  or  activity  of  the  soul, 
a forceful  exercise  of  attention.  Indeed  the  greater  and  more 
complete  the  absorption  of  the  entire  soul  by  the  object  presented 
to  it,  the  more  intense  is  this  psychical  activity,  of  which,  however, 
for  that  very  reason  the  soul  has  no  reflex  consciousness.  If, 
therefore,  the  soul  is  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  God  and  in 
the  reception  of  His  divine  action,  it  is  then  most  intensely  and 
completely  actuated  or  active  in  its  entire  being,  and  has,  never- 
theless, no  consciousness  of  that  activity.  We  may  indeed  say, 
the  greater  the  passivity  the  more  intense  the  action.  Moreover, 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  action  of  grace,  when  that  action  was 
as  yet  imperceptible,  at  least  not  immediately  perceptible,  God’s 
Presence  and  action  were  therefore  unperceived.  This  left  the 
soul  free  to  perceive  its  own  action.  When,  however,  God  and 
His  action  become  manifest,  this  manifestation  so  occupies  the 
attention  of  the  soul  that  it  is  increasingly  unconscious  of  its  own 
activity,  though  that  activity  has  been  in  fact  increased  in  the 
very  attention  that  renders  it  imperceptible.2  The  progress  from 

1 Throughout  this  discussion  I owe  much  to  Baron  von  Hiigel,  Mystical 
Element. 

2 This  conception  of  an  activity  so  intense  and  so  interior  that  it  is  rest  from 
motion,  understood  as  change  even  intellectual,  is  ultimately  due  to  Aristotle, 
who  posits  it  of  the  Godhead  and  terms  it  ivepyeia  aKivr)Sias.  Its  incom- 
prehensibility by  our  discursive  reason,  which  is  of  its  nature  mobile,  has  led  to 
its  widespread  but  unjustifiable  rejection. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  175 

activity  to  passivity  is,  therefore,  to  a great  extent  a change  of 
consciousness,  a change  from  consciousness  of  the  soul’s  normal, 
more  or  less  superficial  activity  with  unconsciousness  of  the  action 
of  God  in  the  central  depths  to  a consciousness  of  the  action  of 
God  in  those  central  depths  with  a resultant  unconsciousness  of 
the  soul’s  own  activity.  Consciousness  of  the  soul’s  own  activity 
at  the  surface  has  yielded  to  consciousness  of  a reception  of  God’s 
action  in  the  depths.  For  this  change  of  consciousness  is  indeed 
due  to  a change  in  the  character  of  the  soul’s  activity  itself. 
Before,  that  activity  was  a reaching  out  or  search  after  a God 
wholly  absent  from  perception.  Now  it  is  a reception  of  God 
present  to  consciousness.  There  is  in  the  latter  activity  the  repose 
and  apparent  passivity  of  fruition,  in  the  former  the  restless 
activity  of  search.  The  change  that  has  taken  place  is  analogous 
to  the  change  from  the  activity  of  hunting  or  cooking  food  to 
the  comparative  passivity  of  eating  it.  Alike  in  the  obtaining 
and  in  the  eating  of  the  food  there  is  activity,  but  of  this  activity 
we  are  more  conscious  when  we  are  seeking  or  preparing  the  food, 
yet  untasted,  than  at  the  time  of  the  actual  eating,  when  the  food 
itself  absorbs  the  attention,1  rather  than  our  activity  in  its  regard, 
whereas  before  the  contrary  was  the  case.  So  is  it  in  this  mystical 
prayer  in  which  the  conscious  activity  of  the  search  after  the 
hidden  God  is  replaced  by  the  fruition  of  His  revealed  Presence. 
The  consequent  sense  of  passivity  is  heightened  by  the  concomitant 
peace  or  repose  in  the  former  sense,  the  peace  arising  from  the 
unity  and  freedom  of  the  soul’s  action,  when  thus  borne  Godward 
by  this  lofty  action  of  grace,  indeed  of  God  Himself  through  grace. 
The  increasing  passivity  of  the  mystical  way  must  not,  therefore, 
be  regarded,  as  it  was  favourably  by  the  Quietist  and  is  unfavour- 
ably by  the  Philistine,  as  an  increasing  idleness.  It  was  only  the 
limits  which  barred  the  conscious  fruition  of  God  from  the  former 
activity  that  rendered  that  activity  conscious,  and  it  is  the  con- 
sciousness of  His  Unlimited  Being  that  now  renders  it  partially 
at  first,  later  wholly  unconscious,  since  the  soul  is  in  this  un- 
limited good  wholly  unified  and  absorbed.  Therefore  when  the 
mystic  union  is  fully  achieved  the  soul  is  established  in  peace, 
and  that  for  the  three  reasons  that  have  just  been  mentioned. 
There  is  repose  from  distracting  multiplicity,  freedom  from 
mutability,  and  the  peace  of  unselfconscious  reception  of  the 

1 For  the  purpose  of  this  illustration  I suppose  the  food  to  be  the  engrossing 
object  of  our  desire  and  thought  ! 


176  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Divine  influx.  St  Catherine  of  Genoa  has  well  expressed  this 
achieved  peace  of  the  supreme  union.  “ The  state  of  this  soul,” 
she  says,  “ is  then  a feeling  of  such  utter  peace  and  tranquillity 
that  it  seems  to  her  that  her  heart  and  all  her  bodily  being,  and  all 
both  within  and  without  is  immersed  in  an  ocean  of  utmost  peace, 
from  whence  she  shall  never  come  forth  for  anything  that  can 
befall  her  in  this  life,  and  she  stays  immovable,  imperturbable, 
impassible.  So  much  so  that  it  seems  to  her  in  her  human  and  her 
spiritual  nature  both  within  and  without,  she  can  feel  no  other  thing 
than  sweetest  peace.  And  she  is  so  full  of  peace  that  though  she 
press  her  flesh,  her  nerves,  her  bones,  no  other  thing  comes  forth 
from  them  than  peace.”  1 Thus  does  the  mystic  way  establish  the 
soul  in  peace,  the  fulness  of  that  peace  promised  to  men  of  good- 
will, the  peace  which  the  world  can  neither  give  nor  take  away. 

(11)  Will  Identification  with  the  Will  of  God. 

If  we  would  consider  the  mystical  way  from  a point  of  view 
simpler,  more  personal  and  more  practical,  we  should  regard  it 
as  the  ever-increasing  identification  of  our  will  with  the  will  of 
God,  which  is  itself  but  the  more  personal  way  of  expressing  the 
gradual  identification  of  our  good  with  the  Absolute  Good.  To 
break  through  the  limits  attaching  to  all  created  activities  and 
ends  and  to  make  the  unlimited  that  is  the  infinite  and  absolute 
goodness  our  end  is  to  identify  our  soul  life  and  our  will  with  the 
Divine  life  and  will.  All  who  are  in  a state  of  grace  have  made 
a fundamental  choice  of  the  Divine  Will  as  their  supreme  end, 
but  the  mystic  carries  this  out  actually  in  every  activity,  interior 
or  exterior,  however  unimportant  it  may  seem.  To  identify 
our  will,  our  good,  our  very  life  with  God  involves  a participation 
in  the  Divine  will,  good  and  life — that  is,  in  God  Himself,  Who  is 
His  will,  His  good  and  His  life.  The  mystic  is  secure  from  failure, 
for  his  will  is  a Will  that  cannot  fail.  He  is  in  harmony  with  all 
things  save  sin,  because  all  except  sin  is  the  product  of  God’s 
will,  and  the  operations  and  mutual  interventions  of  creatures 
are  ordered  by  His  will.  Therefore  all  these  are  now  in  perfect 
accord  with  the  will  of  the  mystic,  working  together  for  his  good, 
who  wholly  loves  God.  Even  the  sin  of  others,  as  he  well  knows, 
is  powerless  to  harm  him,  for  it  cannot  frustrate  God’s  Almighty 

1 Vitae  Dottrina,  xviii.,  quoted  by  Miss  Evelyn  Underhill  ( Mysticism , p.  518), 
who  believes  it  to  be  authentic. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  177 

Will.  His  entire  will  identification  with  the  will  of  God  is  itself 
the  destruction  and  reparation  of  his  own  sins.  It  is,  moreover, 
universal  charity,  for  God’s  will,  now  by  participation  his,  is  love 
of  His  entire  creation.  The  mystic  realises  his  unity  with  all 
creatures  in  his  union  with  God  their  one  source  and  ground. 
Hence  he  feels  himself  in  love  with  them  all,  a note  in  their 
universal  harmony,  their  fellow-member  of  one  Divine  kingdom 
which  is  an  extemalisation  of  God’s  Will  and  Being.  All  creatures, 
even  the  soulless  elements,  are  his  brothers  and  sisters,  and  all 
things  are  his  indeed,  his  because  they  are  God’s  and  he  is  now 
wholly  of  and  in  God.  Moreover,  this  will  identification  is  un- 
troubled peace,  because  it  involves  perfect  and  joyful  resignation 
and  acceptance  of  God’s  dispositions  for  himself  and  others.  It 
is  unity,  because  there  is  no  longer  distraction  in  his  ends  and 
activities.  It  is  power,  because  God  now  works  unopposed 
through  him,  and  the  feeblest  instrument,  if  an  unresisting  instru- 
ment, in  His  hands  can  accomplish  wonderful  things.  It  raises 
his  soul  above  the  dominion  of  change,  of  care,  of  loss,  of  injury 
from  others.  This  ever-increasing  participation  in,  and  union 
with,  the  Divine  Will  and  Life  is  spoken  of  by  St  John  as  a trans- 
formation of  the  soul  in  God  and  a deification  of  the  soul.  This 
language  I will  discuss  later  when  I deal  specifically  with  the 
final  stage  of  mystical  union  as  taught  by  St  John.  All  that  I 
wish  to  insist  on  here  is  that  the  very  essence  and  the  sole  test  of 
progress  in  grace,  and  later  in  the  mystical  way,  is  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  will  and  hence  of  the  activities  and  the  life  of  the  soul 
with  God’s  will,  activity  and  life — that  is,  with  God  Himself. 

(12)  Progressive  Attainment  of  Reality. 

We  may  finally  envisage  the  mystic  way  as  a gradual  attain- 
ment of  Reality.  It  is  here  that  great  caution  is  required.  Many 
modern  writers  on  mysticism  misinterpret  the  doctrine,  that  God 
is  the  ultimate  reality,  in  a pantheistic  sense,  as  if  created  things 
were  merely  unsubstantial  phenomena  of  one  underlying  Divine 
Substance,  and  therefore  unreal  in  the  sense  of  being  an  empty 
illusion,  maya,  as  the  Hindus  term  it.  The  ordinary  non-mystical 
Christian,  however,  is  apt  to  fly  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  to 
regard  creatures  as  fully  real  and  all  creatures  as  equally  real. 
The  truth  lies  between  these  two  extremes.  All  creatures  are 
certainly  real,  for  they  exist.  Any  attempt  to  deny  this  is  self- 

M 


178  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

condemned.  So  far  we  must  go  with  the  plain  workaday  man. 
But  they  are  not  real  in  the  sense  that  God  is  real.  For  their 
being  is  not  self-subsistent,  but  rooted  in  His  being  and  Will. 
Therefore  their  being  compared  to  the  fulness  of  His  absolute 
self-dependent  Being  is  not  being.  Regarded  as  ultimately  self- 
sufficient  or  self-existent  entities,  they  are  indeed  illusion  and 
vanity.  Moreover,  though  they  are  all  real,  they  are  not  all 
equally  real.  Even  the  plain  man  will  admit  that  dreams  and 
fancies  and  optical  illusions  have  existence,  therefore  reality,  but 
that  compared  with  the  objects  of  the  normally  working  and 
correctly  functioning  senses  they  are  unreal,  because  they  have 
so  much  less  being.  The  closer  a creature  approaches  to  God 
the  more  being  it  possesses,  because  its  being  is  less  narrowly 
limited.  Here  we  are,  then,  back  at  the  old  refrain  of  the  entire 
chapter— I might  say  of  the  entire  book— Unlimited  Being — 
Absolute  Reality,  fulness  of  Being  self-existent : more  limits — 
less  being,  less  reality : fewer  limits — more  being,  more  reality. 
What  ultimately  differentiates  matter  from  spirit  ? Matter  has 
more  limits,  therefore  less  being,  less  reality : spirit  has  fewer 
limits,  therefore  more  being,  more  reality.  Hence  the  Eastern 
doctrine  of  maya,  false  as  a philosophy,  is  the  inaccurate  transcript 
of  a profound  truth  underlying  the  entire  mystical  way.  Created 
being  though  not  simply  illusion,  sheer  unreality,  when  compared 
with  God  and  therefore  in  regard  to  the  exigencies  of  the  rational 
soul  capable  through  grace  of  the  fruition  of  God,  is  illusion, 
is  unreal.  Catholic  mysticism — that  is,  simply  Catholic  faith 
in  its  highest  intensity — links  together  the  West  and  the  East. 
It  touches  with  one  hand  the  hard-headed,  practical,  but  some- 
what philistine  W estem,  the  man  of  affairs  who  prides  himself  on 
his  full  recognition  and  successful  manipulation  of  plain  facts, 
the  obvious  realities  of  this  world  in  which  he  lives.  With  the 
other  hand  it  touches  the  Buddhist  devotee  who  kneels  on  the 
pagoda  steps  to  recite  his  rosary  of  disillusionment,  a rosary  whose 
paters  and  aves  are  the  repeated  condemnation  of  all  earthly 
experience  as  nothing  but  “ sorrow,  misery  and  trouble.”1  The 
Western  man  of  business  rejects  or  misunderstands,  the  Buddhist 
wholly  rejects  the  mediating  truth  of  Catholicism  with  its  message 
to  both  and  its  proffered  satisfaction  to  the  spiritual  needs  of 
both.  The  narrowness  of  the  human  mind  will  not  contain  an 
all-comprehending  truth,  unless  circumstances  peculiarly  favour 

1 See  Fielding,  The  Soul  of  a People,  p.  157. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  179 

and  a special  grace  be  granted.  But  the  truth  is  comprehensive 
all  the  same. 

If  an  important  function  of  mysticism  be  thus  a realisation 
of  the  comparative  unreality  of  the  creature,  its  lack  of  being 
when  being  is  understood  as  the  Divine  fulness  of  being  without 
lack  or  limit,  and  especially  of  the  unreality  of  the  more  narrowly 
limited,  superficial  and  sensible  spheres  of  creation,  it  is  the 
function  of  common-sense  to  insist  on  the  realby  of  creatures, 
and  especially  of  the  more  limited  and  more  immediately  sensible 
creatures.  Catholicism,  as  we  have  seen  above,  insists  on  full 
acceptance  of  the  reality  demanded  by  common-sense  and  also 
of  the  comparative  unreality  discovered  by  mystical  intuition, 
and  it  is  in  virtue  of  this  twofold  acceptance  that  Catholicism 
mediates  between  the  “pure”  mysticism  of  the  Buddhist  that 
denies  the  dicta  of  common-sense,  and  the  “pure  ” common-sense 
of  the  Western  philistine  that  rejects  mysticism  as  a mischievous 
absurdity.  Castlereagh  once  characterised  the  Holy  Alliance  as 
“sublime  mysticism  and  nonsense.”  Catholicism  may  be  aptly 
described  as  “sublime  mysticism  and  common-sense.”1  In  this 
combination  of  mysticism  and  common-sense,  of  the  denial  and  the 
affirmation  of  the  reality  of  creatures,  and  consequently  of  their 
rejection  and  acceptance  lies  the  peculiar  genius  of  Catholic 
Christianity.  Hence  also  the  double  attitude  of  the  Church 
towards  this  worldly  knowledge  and  endeavour,  towards  “ en- 
lightenment and  progress  ” whereby  she  seems  at  once  to  bless 
them  and  to  ban  them,  because  in  truth  she  receives  and  re- 
jects them — receives  them  as  positively  good  because  real,  rejects 
them  in  so  far  as  they  exclude  by  their  comparative  unreality 
the  attainment  of  fuller  and  higher  degrees  of  reality,  and  above 
all,  the  attainment  of  the  Absolute  Reality  of  God.  Outside  the 
Church  we  find  to-day  mysticism  running  riot  in  the  denial 
of  all  validity  to  the  common-sense  beliefs  of  mankind,  of  all 
reality  to  the  objects  of  sense  perception  and  of  discursive  reason. 
We  have  already  discussed  an  instance  of  this  denial  of  common- 
sense  in  Miss  Evelyn  Underhill’s  “ superior  ” attitude  to  the  un- 
enlightened plain  man  who  believes  that  if  he  sees  a brick  wall 
he  really  is  in  contact  with  such  an  object  existing  outside  his 
own  perception.  Thus  does  non-Catholic  mysticism  seek  to 

1 Hence  the  welcome  of  Aristotelianism  in  the  Middle  Ages,  for  of  all  philos- 
ophies that  of  Aristotle  shows  the  greatest  and  the  most  openly  avowed  regard 
for  the  dicta  of  universal  common-sense. 


180  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

transcend  common-sense  and  its  sphere  by  the  rejection  of  both. 
It  would  fain  reach  heaven  by  denying  the  existence  of  earth.  For 
lack  of  support  it  falls  and  lies  prostrate  on  the  despised  ground, 
absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  “ dissipated  tabbies  ” and  “sooty 
trees  ” (Miss  Evelyn  Underhill,  Practical  Mysticism ).*  Catholic 
mysticism,  on  the  other  hand,  transcends  common-sense  and  the 
world  of  common-sense  by  the  acceptance  of  both  as  real  and 
valuable  in  their  own  place  and  degree,  as  the  starting-point  of 
the  soul’s  journey  to  God.  With  her  feet  thus  firmly  planted 
on  the  earth,  her  eyes  endure  to  look  upon  the  sun,  and  her  view 
is  among  the  stars.  At  the  other  extreme  are  innumerable 
multitudes  who  explicitly  or  implicitly  deny  the  reality,  or  at 
least  the  superior  reality,  of  the  spiritual.  Both  extremes  are 
offended  by  the  Catholic  Weltanschauung.  Both  can  find  in 
Catholicism  acceptance  and  reconciliation.  But  in  the  meanwhile 
the  “ mystic  ” is  apt  to  disdain  Catholicism  as  crude  and  material- 
istic, the  “ plain  man  ” to  regard  it  as  fantastic  and  superstitious, 
an  obstacle  to  the  material  progress  of  mankind.  I cannot  here 
illustrate  this  point,  and  must  be  content  with  asking  my  readers 
to  test  for  themselves  whether  this  double  acceptance  of  mysticism 
and  common-sense,  of  the  reality  and  the  comparative  unreality 
of  creatures  (the  latter  varying  in  degree  according  to  their 
limitation  and  consequent  distance  from  the  unlimited  Godhead), 
be  not  the  fundamental  characteristic  of  Catholicism  determining 
the  Catholic  attitude  to  human  experience  and  conduct  in  all 
their  manifold  aspects.1 

Surely  I have  now  removed  all  danger  of  pantheistic  mis- 
apprehension of  my  thesis,  that  the  progress  from  union  with 
creatures  as  they  are  in  themselves  and  from  activity  bounded 
by  creatures  to  union  with  God  and  activity  in  God,  is  a progress 
from  non-reality  to  Reality,  to  the  ultimate  Reality,  which  in  the 
created  non-realities  is  the  source  and  ground  of  whatever  degree 
of  reality  they  possess,  to  the  Reality,  that  is  so  real,  that  all  else 
by  comparison  is  unreal.  This,  therefore,  is  the  mystic  scale  of 

1 Hence  it  is  that  the  Church’s  attitude  seems  under  certain  aspects  and  to 
certain  temperaments  so  brutally  realist  and  even  materialistic — e.g.  in  her  wide 
use  of  Roman  law,  her  stern  and  suspicious  examination  of  all  claims  to  special 
sanctity  or  supernatural  favours,  and  in  a " somewhat  business-like  ” dispensa- 
tion of  the  sacraments  ; under  other  aspects  and  to  other  temperaments  so 
“ fantastically  ” other-worldly — e.g.  in  her  preference  for  the  material  overthrow 
of  a nation  to  the  commission  of  sin,  her  thronged  pilgrimages  to  the  place  where 
a peasant  girl  saw  a vision. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MYSTIC  WAY  181 

values  : the  nearer  to  God— that  is,  the  more  of  His  being  there  is 
represented  in  any  creature — the  greater  its  reality,  therefore 
the  greater  its  value ; the  further  from  God — that  is,  the  less  of 
His  Being  there  is  represented  in  any  creature  (as  matter  repre- 
sents less  of  God  than  spirit),  the  less  its  reality  and  therefore  the 
less  its  value.  Thus  in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  St  John 
maintains  the  superior  value  of  sense  impressions  to  imaginary 
pictures  constructed  by  the  combination  of  sense  data,  on  the 
ground  that  the  former  possess  more  reality  than  the  latter 
(Ascent,  II.  xii.).  The  truth  of  the  mystic  way  is  thus  the 
direct  opposite  of  the  popular  notion  of  it.  Far  from  being 
a progress  from  the  more  to  the  less  real,  from  the  concrete 
thing  to  the  empty  abstraction,  it  is  a progress  in  the  opposite 
direction,  ever  adding  degrees  of  reality,  greater  fulness  of  being, 
as  limits,  which  are  negations  of  reality — that  is,  of  being — are 
gradually  transcended,  in  the  ascent  to  the  infinite.  There  is 
nothing  ultimately  negative  in  the  mystical  way,  which  is  a 
process  of  ever-increasing  positivity,  as  God  the  all  Positive 
without  any  negation,  because  without  any  limit,  is  ever  more 
fully  attained.  Nevertheless  this  positive  process  has  of  necessity 
its  negative  aspect.  The  elimination  of  limits  involves  the 
elimination  of  much  that  is  positive  in  which  those  limits  inhere. 
Later,  all  that  is  positive  in  creatures  is  indeed  restored  in  a 
higher  way,  when  their  limits  no  longer  come  between  the  soul 
and  God.  Till,  however,  that  stage  is  reached,  a stage  on  which 
the  soul  enters  when  the  night  of  purgation  is  passed,  and  which 
is  fully  completed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  negative 
process  is  essential.  It  constitutes  the  dominant  characteristic 
of  the  beginning  of  the  mystical  way,  reappears  later  with  far 
greater  intensity,  and  is  never  wholly  transcended  in  this  mortal 
life.  It  is  the  subject  matter  of  two  of  St  John’s  treatises — both 
unhappily  incomplete — The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  and  The 
Dark  Night  of  the  Soul.  This  negative  way,  therefore,  will  require 
a very  close  study.  Such  a study,  however,  could  not  have  been 
profitably  undertaken  until  the  positive  character  of  the  mystical 
way  had  been  made  clear.  Otherwise  the  reader  could  hardly 
have  failed  to  receive  the  false  impression  that  St  John’s  negative 
way  is  ultimately  negative  or  nihilistic.  It  is,  on  the  contrary, 
the  destruction  of  the  limits  which  kept  the  soul  from  the  fruition 
of  unlimited  good,  temporary  rejection  in  the  interest  of  possession, 
No  as  the  inevitable  way  to  the  perfect  Yes. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  NEGATIVE  WAY 


Joy,  joy.  There  is  nothing,  nothing  . . . 

Oh  injinite  happiness. 

Jean  Christophe, 

English  Translation,  vol.  i.,  p.  90. 

Hark  to  the  Alleluia  of  the  bird 

For  those  that  found  the  dying  way  to  life. 

Francis  Thompson. 

Where  is  the  land  of  Luthany  ? 

Where  is  the  tract  of  Elenore  ? 

1 am  bound  therefor. 

“ Pierce  thy  heart  to  find  the  key ; 

With  thee  take 

Only  what  none  else  would  keep ; 

Learn  to  dream  when  thou  dost  wake, 

Learn  to  wake  when  thou  dost  sleep. 

Learn  to  water  joy  with  tears. 

Learn  from  fears  to  vanquish  fears ; 

To  hope,  for  thou  dar'st  not  despair. 

Exult,  for  that  thou  dar'st  not  grieve ; 

Plough  thou  the  rock  until  it  bear  ; 

Know,  for  thou  else  couldst  not  believe ; 

Lose,  that  the  lost  thou  may' st  receive  ; } 

Die,  for  none  other  way  const  live.  ’) 

When  earth  and  heaven  lay  down  their  veil, 

And  that  apocalypse  turns  thee  pale ; 

When  thy  seeing  blindeth  thee 
To  what  thy  fellow-mortals  see  ; 

When  their  sight  to  thee  is  sightless ; 

Their  living,  death ; their  light,  most  lightless ; 

Search  no  more — 

Pass  the  gale  of  Luthany,  tread  the  region  Elenore." 

Francis  Thompson, 

The  Mistress  of  Vision. 

The  verses  of  Francis  Thompson,  so  hauntingly  beautiful,  but  at 
first  sight  so  obscure,  with  which  I have  prefaced  this  chapter  are 

182 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  183 

but  the  poetical  expression  of  that  Via  Negativa  of  mysticism  of 
which  St  John  of  the  Cross  is  the  clearest  and  most  uncompromis- 
ing exponent.  St  John  has  devoted  to  the  negative  way  two 
treatises,  or  rather,  as  he  intended  and  regarded  them,  two 
portions  of  one  treatise — namely,  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  and 
The  Dark  Night  of  the  Soul.  His  teaching  on  this  subject  has  often 
been  grossly  misunderstood,  as  also  has  its  ground,  already  dis- 
cussed, the  negative  knowledge  of  God.  The  misapprehension 
has  been  in  both  cases  to  regard  what  is  relatively  negative  as 
absolutely  negative.  In  order  the  better  to  avoid  this  misappre- 
hension I have  emphasised  already  the  essentially  positive  char- 
acter of  mysticism.  I have  pointed  out  that  the  mystical  way — 
or  rather  the  way  of  sanctifying  grace  of  which  the  mystical 
union-intuition  is  a stage — is  a progress  from  less  to  greater 
positivity,  from  the  comparatively  unreal  to  an  ever  fuller  reality. 
For  the  creature  contains  qua  creature  a negative  or  unreal 
element,  and  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that  the  Uncreated  Being  of 
God  cannot  be  known  through  any  created  concept,  since  every 
such  concept  involves  a limitation  and  therefore  a negation  which 
is  infinitely  distant  from  pure  positivity.  But  it  plainly  follows 
from  this  that  union  with  God  must  involve  the  progressive  rejec- 
tion of  creaturely  limitations,  and  that  alike  in  the  cognitive  and 
volitional  aspects  of  the  soul’s  activity.  Until  the  soul  is  wholly 
free  from  the  limitations  of  finite  aims  and  concepts,  it  cannot 
fully  receive  the  unlimited  Being  of  God.  This  gradual  process  of 
detachment  from  the  limited  is  called  by  St  John  the  Night  of  the 
Soul.  “ I call,”  he  says,  “ this  detachment  the  night  of  the  soul 
. . . which  consists  in  suppressing  desire  and  avoiding  pleasure  : 
it  is  this  that  sets  the  soul  free,  even  though  possession  may  be 
still  retained  ” ( Ascent , I.  iii).  “ The  soul  must  of  necessity 
— if  we  would  attain  to  the  divine  union  with  God — pass 
through  the  dark  night  of  mortification  of  the  desires  and  self- 
denial  in  all  things.  The  reason  is  this  : all  the  love  we  bestow  on 
creatures  is  in  the  eyes  of  God  mere  darkness,  and  while  we  are 
involved  therein,  the  soul  is  incapable  of  being  enlightened  and 
possessed  by  the  pure  and  simple  light  of  God,  unless  we  first  cast 
that  love  away.  . . . The  affection  and  attachment  which  the 
soul  feels  for  the  creature  renders  the  soul  its  equal  and  its  like — 
the  greater  the  affection  the  greater  will  be  the  likeness.  . . . He 
who  loves  the  creature  becomes  vile  as  that  creature  itself,  and  in 
one  sense  even  viler,  for  love  not  only  levels,  but  subjects  also  the 


184  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

lover  to  the  object  of  his  love.”  1 Both  these  reasons  amount  to 
this,  that  attachment  to  the  limited  for  its  own  sake  involves  the 
limitation  of  our  love  with  the  limits  of  its  object,  and  this  limita- 
tion debars  the  soul  from  free  and  full  love-union  with  God,  the 
Unlimited  Good.  This  is  perhaps  stated  somewhat  more  clearly 
in  the  immediately  following  paragraphs.  “ He  who  loveth  any- 
thing beside  God  ” (i.e.  not  in  order  to  God)  “ renders  his  soul 
incapable  of  the  pure  divine  union  and  transformation  in  God,  for 
the  vileness  of  the  creature  is  further  removed  from  the  greatness  of 
the  Creator  than  darkness  is  from  light.  All  things  in  heaven  and 
earth  are  nothing  in  comparison  with  God.  . . . All  created 
things  with  the  affections  bestowed  upon  them  are  nothing,  because 
they  are  a hindrance,  and  the  privation  of  our  transformation  in 
God,  just  as  darkness  is  nothing,  and  less  than  nothing,  being  the 
absence  of  light.  And  as  he  who  is  in  darkness  comprehends  not 
the  light,  so  the  soul,  the  affections  of  which  are  given  to  the 
creature,  shall  never  comprehend  God.  Until  our  soul  is  purged 
of  these  affections  we  shall  not  possess  God  in  this  life  in  the  pure 
transformation  of  love,  nor  in  the  life  to  come  in  clear  vision.  . . . 
The  whole  creation,  compared  with  the  infinite  being  of  God,  is 
nothing,  and  so  the  soul,  the  affections  of  which  are  set  on  created 
things,  is  nothing,  and  even  less  than  nothing  before  God,  because 
love  begets  equality  and  likeness  and  even  inferiority  to  the  object 
beloved.  Such  a soul,  therefore,  cannot  by  any  possibility  be 
united  to  the  infinite  being  of  God,  because  that  which  is  not  can 
have  no  communion  with  that  which  is  ” ( Ascent , I.  iv).  That 
is  to  say,  a soul  bound  by  the  negation-limits  of  the  creature, 
and  thus  deprived  of  being  by  its  lack  of  being,  and  that  in  the 
exact  measure  of  that  lack  of  being  cannot  be  united  with  the 
Unlimited,  cannot  receive  the  fulness  of  Absolute  Being. 

This  doctrine  is  expressed  in  a later  chapter  in  a series  of  appar- 
ent paradoxes  which  sum  up  St  John’s  teaching  on  the  negative 
way.  The  student  of  mysticism  will  do  well  to  bear  them  in  mind 
— for  they  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter. 

“ That  thou  mayest  have  pleasure  in  the  All,  seek  pleasure  in 
nothing.  That  thou  mayest  know  the  All,  seek  to  know  nothing. 

“ That  thou  mayest  possess  the  All,  seek  to  possess  nothing. 

“ That  thou  mayest  be  the  All,  seek  to  be  nothing. 

“ When  thou  dwellest  upon  anything,  thou  hast  ceased  to  cast 
thyself  upon  the  All. 


1 Ascent,  I.  iv. 


THE  MOUNT  OF  GOD,  A FERTILE  MOUNT,  A MOUNT.  HEAPED  UP. 


PATH  OFAN  IMPERFECT  SPIRIT  NARROW  PATH  OF  PERFECTION  PATH  OF  AN  ERRING  SPIRIT. 

NARROW  IS  THE  WAV  THAT  LEADETH  TO  LIFE  MATT. 7.14. 


GOD  TO  DWELL. 


186  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

“ Because  in  order  to  arrive  wholly  at  the  All,  thou  hast  to 
deny  thyself  wholly  in  all. 

“ And  when  thou  contest  to  attain  the  All,  thou  must  keep  it 
without  desiring  anything. 

“ Because,  if  thou  wilt  keep  anything  with  the  All,  thou  hast 
not  thy  treasure  simply  in  God.” 

These  lines,  with  some  others  to  the  same  effect,  were  placed 
also  by  the  saint  below  a curious  diagram  with  which  he  prefaced 
The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  I reproduce  this  diagram  here  as  it 
stands  in  the  original,  save  that  I have  translated  the  Spanish  and 
Latin  into  English. 

We  remark  first  that  there  are  three  ways  set  before  the  soul. 
Of  these  the  right-hand  path,  that  of  the  goods  of  earth,  leads 
wholly  away  from  the  ascent  of  the  mountain — that  is,  from  God. 
The  left-hand  way,  that  of  the  goods  of  heaven,1  does  indeed  lead 
to  the  summit,  but  by  a slow  and  circuitous  route.  The  central 
way — the  narrow  path — leads  thither  directly  and  speedily.  It 
is  marked  by  one  significant  word  oft  repeated — nada — nada — 
nada — nada — nada — nothing — nothing — nothing — nothing — 
nothing.  It  is  the  path  of  utter  rejection.  But  is  not  this  sheer 
nihilism  ? Does  not  this  terrible  nada  fully  justify  St  John’s 
severest  critics  ? This  is  too  hasty.  Before  rushing  at  conclu- 
sions, let  us  consider  the  matter  in  the  light  of  what  has  been 
already  discussed  and  quoted. 

First  note  well  that  nada  is  but  the  way — not  the  goal.  The 
goal  is,  as  the  above-quoted  verses  emphasised,  the  very  opposite 
pole  to  nothingness — namely,  the  All,  that  which  is  the  positive 
being  of  all  things,  God  Who  is  eminently  all  that  creatures  are, 
without  the  negation  inherent  in  creatureliness.  The  goal  of 
St  John  is  not  a negative  Nirvana.2  How  infinitely  positive  and 
rich  is  the  goal  to  which  St  John  would  bring  us  will  be  better 
realised  when  we  come  to  discuss  in  detail  the  higher  stages  of  the 
mystical  union.  But  at  least  we  know  already  that  it  is  the  very 
opposite  of  nonentity. 

The  next  point  to  which  attention  must  be  called  is  that  Our 
Lord  teaches  in  substance  the  same  doctrine  of  the  negative  way 
that  is  expressed  with  such  terrifying  force  by  St  John.  “ Blessed 
are  the  poor  in  spirit  ” — i.e.  those  detached  from  worldly  goods — 

1 I.e.  spiritual  things  that  are  not  God  Himself. 

2 Whether  Buddha’s  Nirvana  was  negative  or  positive  is  a vexed  question 
which  I do  not  wish  to  discuss  here.  The  probability  is  that  it  was  negative. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  187 

the  “ goods  of  the  earth  ” of  St  John’s  right-hand  path.  “ Blessed 
are  the  meek,”  those  who  have  utterly  rejected  self- aggrandise- 
ment in  opposition  to  and  at  the  expense  of  the  universal  good. 
“ Blessed  are  they  that  mourn.”  “ Blessed  are  they  that  suffer 
persecution.”  “ Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  on  earth.” 
“ If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and 
wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life 
also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.”  “ Every  one  of  you  that  doth 
not  renounce  all  that  he  possesseth  cannot  be  my  disciple.”  “For 
he  that  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it : and  he  that  shall  lose  his  life 
for  my  sake  [that  is,  for  God’s  sake — since  Christ’s  sovereign  claim 
is  the  consequence  of  His  Divinity]  shall  find  it.”  “He  that 
findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  shall  lose  his  life  for  me 
shall  find  it.  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him,  deny  himself, 
and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  me.”  “ Amen,  Amen,  I say  to 
you,  unless  the  grain  of  wheat  falling  into  the  ground  die  ; itself 
remaineth  alone.  But  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.  He 
that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it ; and  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this 
world  keepeth  it  unto  life  eternal.”  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  we  are 
reading  into  these  words  of  Our  Lord  a later  asceticism.  It  is 
present  in  their  obvious  meaning.  It  may  also  be  remarked  that 
the  most  modern  and  most  independent  of  higher  critics,  Dr 
Schweitzer,  insists  on  this  “ world  negation  ” in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  a negation  which  is,  he  points  out,  in  conflict  with  the 
“ world  acceptance,”  forced  into  the  Gospel  by  Protestant 
theology.1  St  Paul  echoes  the  hard  sayings  of  his  Divine 
Master. 

“ It  remaineth  that  they  also  who  have  wives  be  as  if  they  had 
none  : and  they  that  weep,  as  though  they  wept  not : and  they 
that  rejoice,  as  though  they  rejoiced  not : and  they  that  buy,  as 
though  they  possessed  not : and  they  that  use  this  world,  as 
though  they  used  it  not.”  “The  things  that  were  gain  to  me, 
the  same  I have  counted  loss  for  Christ.  Furthermore,  I count  all 
things  to  be  but  loss  for  the  excellent  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ 

1 See  his  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  especially  the  concluding  pages 
(pp.  400-401,  English  translation).  The  author’s  one-sided  emphasis  on  eschat- 
ology does  not  invalidate  the  force  of  this  testimony  to  the  evangelical  character 
of  Catholic  renunciation  of  the  world. 

Dr  Schweitzer  has  since  given  practical  testimony  to  his  conviction  of  this 
“world-negation”  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  For  he  has  abandoned  his  position 
in  the  world  of  European  scholarship  to  become  a medical  missionary  in  Africa. 
He  has  thus,  indeed,  left  all  to  follow  a Christ  whose  Divinity  he  disbelieves. 


188  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

my  Lord  : for  whom  I have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and 
count  them  but  as  dung,  that  I may  gain  Christ.”  It  is  therefore 
evident  that  we  cannot  reject  the  teaching  of  St  John  of  the  Cross 
without  at  the  same  time  rejecting  the  teaching  of  Christ,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Cross.  St  John  has  but  worked  out  the  significance 
and  the  logical  necessity  of  the  Gospel  teaching.  Human  nature 
may  and  does  shrink  from  the  cross.  But  we  cannot,  therefore, 
deny  the  force  of  St  John’s  reasoning.  If  we  wish  to  be  made  one 
with  God,  we  must  be  detached  from  the  finite.  The  life  of 
grace  is  the  progress  from  the  life  of  nature  self-centred  and 
bounded  by  the  limitations  of  the  creature  to  the  full  supernatural 
participation  (to  the  utmost  measure  of  our  capacity)  of  the  un- 
limited Being  of  God,  a participation  that  is  a life  God-centred 
and  God-principled.  To  draw  near  to  one  terminus  is  of  necessity 
to  depart  from  the  other.  If  our  life  is  to  be  supernatural,  it 
cannot  be  merely  natural.  If  it  is  to  be  for  God,  in  God  and  of 
God,  it  cannot  be  for  self,  in  self,  or  of  self,  for  the  creature,  in  the 
creature,  or  of  the  creature.  If  it  is  to  be  a participation  of  the 
unlimited,  it  cannot  be  confined  and  conditioned  by  the  limits  of 
creatures.  The  vessel  that  is  bound  for  the  ocean  cannot  remain 
in  the  harbour  or  even  in  the  estuary.  The  butterfly  cannot  come 
forth  into  the  freedom  of  the  air  until  the  caterpillar,  with  its 
earth-bound  life,  has  been  destroyed  and  buried  in  the  tomb  of 
the  chrysalis.  So  long  as  we  are  attached  to  some  finite  idea  or 
image,  or  to  some  finite  aim,  so  as  to  adhere  to  that  idea,  image  or 
aim  for  its  own  sake— as  a final  value  in  our  spiritual  life — we  are 
not  free  to  pass  beyond  it  to  the  infinite  life  of  God.  We  must 
remember  also  that  ib  is  not  the  enjoyment  of  created  goods,  but 
the  adherence  of  the  will  to  those  goods,  not  the  use  of  created 
images  and  concepts,  but  the  resting  of  the  soul  in  them,  that  is 
condemned.  Only  in  so  far  as  possession  and  use  inevitably  cause 
adherence  of  will  or  understanding  are  such  possession  and  use 
to  be  rejected.  When  and  in  so  far  as  attachment  is  destroyed, 
the  soul  may  safely  use  and  enjoy  created  goods  and  ideas.  They 
will  then  help  it  to  pass  through  and  beyond  them  to  the  infinite 
and  will  themselves  be  rightly  valued  and  used.  “ He  has  greater 
joy,”  says  St  John,  “ and  comfort  in  creatures  if  he  detaches  him- 
self from  them  ; and  he  can  have  no  joy  in  them  if  he  considers 
them  as  his  own.  For  selfish  attachment  is  a bond  that  chains  the 
soul  to  earth  and  suffers  not  breadth  of  heart.  He  acquires  also 
in  this  detachment  from  creatures  a clear  comprehension  of  them. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  189 

. . . For  this  reason  his  joy  in  them  is  widely  different  from 
his  who  is  attached  to  them  and  far  nobler.  The  former  re- 
joices in  their  truth,  the  latter  in  their  deceptiveness  ; the  former 
in  their  best,  the  latter  in  their  worst  conditions  ; the  former 
in  their  substantial  worth,  and  the  latter  in  their  seeming  and 
accidental  nature  through  his  senses  only.  For  sense  cannot 
grasp  or  comprehend  more  than  the  accidents,  but  the  mind, 
purified  from  the  clouds  and  species  of  the  accidents,  penetrates 
to  the  interior  truth  and  worth  of  things,  for  that  is  its  proper 
object.  Now  joy  as  a cloud  darkens  the  judgment,  for  there 
can  be  no  rejoicing  in  created  things  without  the  attachment  of 
the  will,  just  as  joy  cannot  exist  as  a passion  without  habitual 
selfish  attachment  of  heart.  The  negation  and  purgation  of  this 
joy  leaves  the  judgment  clear  as  the  sky  when  the  mists  are 
scattered.  The  former,  therefore,  has  joy  in  all  things,  since  he  has 
no  proprietary  pleasure  in  them,  and  it  is  as  if  all  were  his  own  : 
and  the  latter,  in  so  far  as  he  regards  particular  things  as  his  own, 
loses  that  universal  joy  in  all  things.  The  former,  whilst  his  heart 
is  set  upon  none  of  them,  possesses  them  all.  . . . The  latter, 
while  in  will  attached  to  them,  neither  has  nor  possesses  anything  ; 
yea,  rather  created  things  have  possession  of  his  very  heart,  for 
which  cause  he  suffers  pain  as  a prisoner  ” ( Ascent , III.  xix). 
In  this  passage  we  have  a clear  exposition  of  the  true  meaning 
and  of  one  important  value  of  detachment.  To  be  detached 
from  creatures  is  to  possess  their  positive  being  without 
bondage  within  their  negative  element,  their  limitation,  and  to 
pass  in  and  through  this  to  the  infinite  ground  of  their  being.  It 
is  also  to  apprehend  the  spiritual  reality  externalised  and  sym- 
bolised in  the  material  object.1  In  the  twenty-third  chapter  of 
the  third  book  of  The  Ascent  St  John  tells  us  that  the  use  and 
enjoyment  of  sensible  things  is  profitable  to  the  mystic  if  he  rise 
from  them  to  God,  and  he  emphasises  this  teaching  in  the  twenty- 
fifth  chapter.  “ As  to  the  eye,”  he  says,  “ now  purged  from  all 
joy  in  seeing,  the  soul  receives  joy,  directed  to  God,  in  all  that  is 
seen.  ...  As  to  the  ear,  purged  from  all  joy  in  hearing,  the  soul 
receives  joy  a hundredfold,  and  that  most  spiritual,  directed  to 
God  in  all  that  is  heard,  whether  human  or  divine.  The  same 
observation  applies  to  the  other  senses  when  purged.”  2 In  other 

1 Material  in  the  widest  sense.  A distinct  idea  is  material  in  so  far  as  it  is  an 
abstraction  from  material  images. 

2 Cf.  St  Ignatius,  Spiritual  Exercises,  Fourth  Week,  A.  7. 


190  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

words,  the  true  function  of  creatures  is  sacramental.  They  are 
to  lead  us  inwards  or  upwards  (as  you  choose  to  symbolise  the  soul 
movement)  to  their  Divine  ground  and  source.  If  we  follow  this 
attraction,  the  soul  finds  rest  and  joy  ; if  we  remain  attached  to 
the  external  and  the  particular,  satiety  and  weariness  will  be  our 
portion.  To  be  attached  to  or  to  desire  creatures,  not  as  channels 
to  God,  but  as  ends  in  themselves,  is  to  be  bound  in  and  by  their 
creaturely  limitations.  For  the  love  of  the  will  rests  in  a limited 
object  and  thus  is,  as  we  have  seen,  impeded  or  altogether  pre- 
vented from  passing  onward  to  the  perfect  will-union  with  God 
that  is  the  goal  of  the  mystical  way,  indeed  of  the  life  of  grace. 
The  cognitive  function  of  the  soul  is  bound  in  like  manner  within 
their  limitations,  within  distinct  ideas,  and  cannot  escape  to  the 
free  intuition  of  the  Unlimited  God  unknowable  by  distinct  ideas. 
Moreover,  any  one  desire  deliberately  entertained,  however  slight 
its  subject  matter — that  is, the  adherence  of  the  will  to  any  creature, 
however  trifling  in  worth  as  apart  from  God — is  sufficient  to  effect 
this  bondage  within  the  limited  which  prevents  the  soul  from  pass- 
ing onward  to  full  union  with  God.  The  will  is  not  wholly  directed 
to  God,  wholly  made  one  with  His  will,  for  it  wills  some  object 
other  than  and  besides  God  and  His  Will.  Therefore  the  perfect 
union  with  God,  which  is  the  end  of  the  mystic  way,  can  never  be 
attained  so  long  as  any  deliberate  desire  remains,  however  insig- 
nificant be  its  object.  “ All  voluntary  desires,”  says  St  John, 
“ whether  of  mortal  sins  ...  or  of  venial  sins  ...  or  of  im- 
perfections only  must  be  banished  away,  and  the  soul  that  would 
attain  to  perfect  union  must  be  delivered  from  them  all,  however 
slight  they  may  be.  The  reason  is  this  : the  state  of  divine  union 
consists  in  the  total  transformation  of  the  will  into  the  will  of  God, 
so  that  there  is  in  the  soul  nothing  contrary  to  the  divine  will. 
But  if  the  soul  cleaves  to  any  imperfection  contrary  to  the  will  of 
God,  His  will  alone  is  not  done,  for  the  soul  wills  that  which  God 
wills  not.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  if  the  soul  is  to  be  united  in 
love  and  will  with  God,  every  desire  of  the  will  must  first  of  all  be 
cast  away,  however  slight  it  may  be  ; that  is,  we  must  not  deliber- 
ately, and  knowingly,  assent  with  the  will  to  any  imperfection.  . . . 
Does  it  make  any  difference  whether  a bird  be  held  by  a slender 
thread  or  by  a rope  ? Although  the  cord  be  slender  the  bird 
will  be  just  as  bound,  as  by  the  rope,  so  that  it  cannot  fly.  . . . 
This  is  the  state  of  the  soul  with  particular  attachments,  it 
never  can  attain  to  the  liberty  of  the  divine  union,  whatever 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  191 

virtues  it  may  possess.  Desires  and  attachments  effect  the  soul 
as  the  remora  is  said  to  effect  a ship,  that  is  but  a little  fish, 
yet  when  it  clings  to  a vessel  it  effectually  hinders  its  progress  ” 
(Ascent,  I.  xi). 

In  the  opening  chapters  of  the  first  book  of  The  Ascent  St 
John  analyses  with  great  psychological  skill  the  effects  of  desire, 
desire  for  creatures  as  ends  in  themselves.  He  shows  how  such 
desires  fatigue,  torment,  darken,  pollute  and  enfeeble  the  soul. 
He  calls  these  effects  the  positive  evils  of  the  desires.  The  desires 
fatigue  the  soul  because  they  demand  first  one  thing,  then  another, 
and  yet  are  never  satisfied.  They  torment  the  soul  by  the  keen 
cravings  they  awake  and  by  robbing  it  of  its  strength.  They 
darken  the  soul  in  several  ways.  They  overcloud  the  perception 
so  that  the  soul  cannot  attain  a true  view  of  reality  nor  receive 
the  supernatural  wisdom  of  God.  They  deprive  the  soul  of  clear 
judgment,  leading  it  blindly  in  the  wrong  direction.  Finally, 
they  so  dazzle  the  soul  with  the  false  glamour  they  cast  upon 
their  objects,  that  the  spiritual  vision  cannot  penetrate  beyond 
these  objects  to  the  true  Object  of  Love.  They  pollute  the  soul 
by  staining  the  purity  of  its  life,  of  its  Godward  nisus  with  the 
multiple  stains  of  their  unworthy  objects,  whose  images  are  im- 
pressed on  the  understanding.  They  enfeeble  the  soul  because 
they  divide  the  unity  of  its  life  and  will  among  a manifold  of 
“ trifles,”  and  this  distraction  of  spiritual  energy  is,  of  course,  its 
diminution  ( Ascent , Book  I.,  chaps,  vi-xi).  In  all  these  respects, 
some  of  which  have  been  discussed  in  detail  in  the  last  chapter, 
their  action  is  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  the  Divine  Love 
which  is  the  substance  of  mystical  union.  The  evil  effects  of  the 
desires  have  indeed  been  fully  realised  outside  the  pale  of  Christi- 
anity. The  evil  of  desire,  the  commonplace  of  Buddhism,  the 
basis  of  the  pessimism  of  Schopenhauer,  and  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  was  a fundamental  principle  of  the  practical  philosophy  of 
Epicurus.  It  is,  however,  plain  that  desire  is  of  the  very  essence 
of  life.  Activity  must  always  be  motived  by  desire  for  some  end. 
Hence  it  was  that  Schopenhauer,  together  with  that  school  of 
Buddhism  whose  Nirvana  is  extinction,  denounces  life  itself  as 
evil.  Christian  mysticism,  on  the  contrary,  sees  that  the  evil  lies 
not  in  desire  as  such,  but  in  desire  for  particular  objects,  for 
creatures  which  cannot,  owing  to  their  essential  limitations,  satisfy 
the  need  of  the  soul  for  perfect — that  is,  unlimited — happiness. 
We  have  already  seen  that  there  is  more  of  positive  being  in  some 


192  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

creatures  than  in  others.  Therefore  desire  for  the  creatures  that 
have  more  positive  being  is  less  harmful  than  desire  for  those  that 
possess  less  positive  being,  because  in  the  former  there  is  more 
positive  good  to  satisfy  the  soul.1  Those  creatures,  however, 
which  have  the  least  positive  being  are  those  whose  enjoyment 
and  use  involves  the  most  exclusive  possession.  As  their  positive 
being  increases,  the  exclusiveness  of  possession  necessary  for  their 
enjoyment  tends  to  decrease  in  proportion.  The  better  goods, 
those  possessed  of  a high  degree  of  positive  being — intellectual 
truths,  moral  qualities,  friendship  and  love,  the  beauties  of  nature 
and  art  2 — do  not  thus  depend  on  exclusive  possession.  My  know- 
ledge of  a truth  in  no  way  excludes  others  from  knowledge  of  the 
same  truth.  My  possession  of  moral  qualities  helps  instead  of 
hindering  the  possession  of  these  qualities  by  others.  My  enj  oyment 
of  a landscape  or  of  a work  of  art  does  not  prevent  its  enjoyment 
by  others.  Many  persons  can  read  the  same  book,  see  the  same 
picture,  enjoy  the  friendship  of  the  same  friend.  Love  indeed 
does  involve  a large  element  of  exclusive  possession.  That 
element,  however,  is  grounded  in,  and  attached  to,  the  lower  or 
physical  constituent  of  love.  None  but  the  father  and  mother 
can  share  their  love  of  their  children,  because  the  physical  relation- 
ship of  parenthood  is  absent.  The  mutual  love  of  husband  and 
wife  excludes  the  participation  of  a third  party  for  a similar 
reason.  These  physical  conditions,  however,  are  but  temporary 
limitations — limitations  confined  to  human  life  on  earth.  They 
do  not  belong  to  the  essence  of  love.  Love  when  it  is  full  grown 
to  the  maturity  of  the  spiritual  and  the  eternal,  knows  no  more 
the  exclusions  which  are  but  the  swaddling  clothes  of  its  earthly 
infancy.  In  heaven  the  mutual  love  of  the  elect  infinitely  sur- 
passes the  deepest  earthly  love  of  man  and  wife,  or  mother  and 
child.  Nevertheless  “ they  do  not  marry  nor  are  given  in 
marriage.”  * Therefore  the  more  of  positive  being,  the  less  the 
limitation,  and  consequently  the  less  the  exclusion.  Therefore 
also  the  greater  and  the  deeper — -that  is,  the  more  spiritual — our 
love,  our  charity,  the  more  universal  will  it  be,  and  the  more 

1 This  supposes  the  force  of  desire  to  be  equal  in  both  cases.  If,  as  often 
happens,  the  desire  for  the  less  limited  goods  is  stronger  than  desire  for  the  more 
limited  goods,  the  former  desire  is  the  more  harmful,  because  more  exclusive  of 
charity. 

2 Yet  these  latter  require  more  exclusion  than  the  former  goods.  A particular 
work  of  art  can  only  be  accessible  to  a comparative  few.  The  beauties  of  nature 
are  often  visible  solely  to  those  who  can  afford  time  and  money  to  visit  them. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  193 

complete  will  be  its  rejection  of  the  exclusiveness  which  springs 
from  the  limitations  of  the  finite. 

Exclusive  possession  is,  however,  obtained  by  money  and 
measured  by  money.  There  are  goods  that  are  entirely  or  almost 
entirely  to  be  obtained  for  money,  goods,  therefore,  which  are 
wholly,  or  almost  wholly,  dependent  for  their  use  on  exclusive 
possession.  Such,  for  instance,  are  articles  of  food  and  clothing, 
houses,  estates,  motors,  horses,  yachts  and  the  like.  Of  such 
goods,  there  are  those  that  are  necessary  and  those  that  are  super- 
fluous, luxuries.  The  former  cost  so  little  that  they  are,  or 
rather  could  be  and  should  be,  within  the  reach  of  all  men.  They 
are  also  the  goods  that  Our  Lord  has  promised  to  those  who  seek 
first  His  Kingdom.  The  latter,  though  capable  of  good  use, 
have  on  the  whole  an  evil  effect  on  their  possessor,  by  binding 
him  in  the  chains  of  their  exclusiveness.  There  are  other  goods 
which  cannot  be  obtained  without  money,  but  cannot  be  obtained 
by  money  alone.  Such  goods  are,  for  instance,  works  of  art, 
which  require  for  their  right  use  and  choice  good  taste  as  well  as 
the  means  to  purchase  them  ; friends  whom  we  cannot  buy  for 
money  and  whose  society  nevertheless  we  often  cannot  enjoy 
unless  we  have  sufficient  means  to  afford  them  hospitality;  a 
happy  marriage,  which  is  indeed  beyond  all  price  of  gold,  and 
nevertheless  requires  a certain  income.  One  sure  test  of  a vulgar 
man  is  his  attitude  towards  this  second  class  of  goods.  The  vulgar 
man  only  values  works  of  art  for  their  price,  and  friends  as  proofs 
of  wealth  and  means  to  further  wealth,  and  he  measures  matri- 
monial success  by  the  income  of  the  bride.  I have  pointed  out 
already  that  the  vulgar  man,  the  opposite  pole  to  the  mystic, 
is  the  man  who  lives  entirely  on  the  surface,  entirely  captive  to 
the  most  external  and  material,  and  therefore  the  most  limited, 
objects  of  desire.  Now  it  is  just  these  objects  that  are  valuable 
by  a money  value,  because  of  their  complete  exclusion  of  common 
possession,  an  exclusiveness  which  itself  is  constituted  by  their 
extreme  limitation.  Hence  the  vulgar  man  is  the  man  who 
measures  everything  by  money  and  who  therefore  aims  primarily 
at  the  first  class  of  goods  and  at  the  second  class  only  in  so  far  as 
they  are  dependent  on  money  and  reducible  to  a monetary  standard. 
These  goods  of  the  second  class  vary  indefinitely  in  the  degree  of 
their  dependence  on  money  for  their  enjoyment,  and  the  measure 
of  their  independence  of  money  is  the  measure  of  their  true  value 
because  it  is  the  measure  of  their  freedom  from  limits  and  therefore 

N 


194  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  their  positive  reality  and  of  their  spiritual  significance.  As 
they  ascend  in  this  scale,  they  approach  ever  more  closely  the 
goods  of  the  third  and  highest  class,  those  that  are  altogether 
independent  of  money  for  their  enjoyment.  Such  are  intellectual 
and  artistic  capacities,  moral  virtues  and,  above  all,  religion. 
“ The  gift  of  God  cannot  be  purchased  with  money,”  nor  will 
money  help  us  to  possess  it.  The  poorest  may  be  a saint.  It  is 
indeed  true  that  there  is  a degrading  poverty  which  hinders  the 
knowledge  of  religious  truth  and  the  attainment  of  virtue.  This 
is  the  poverty  that  is  neither  holy  nor  blessed,  the  poverty  that 
is  directly  caused  by  sin,1  and  which  God  hates.  The  poverty 
of  the  East  End  slum  is  not  the  poverty  of  Nazareth  nor  of  the 
saints,  but  an  abomination  to  be  abhorred,  and  to  the  measure 
of  their  opportunities  eradicated,  by  all  good  men.  That  moral 
and  spiritual  goods  are  not  as  much  in  the  reach  of  the  labourer 
as  of  the  prince  is  due,  in  so  far  as  it  is  the  case,  to  a social  disease 
arising  directly  from  the  sinful  materialism  of  a godless  civilisation. 
Poverty  of  the  type  lauded  by  Christ  and  the  saints,  far  from 
being  an  obstacle  to  the  possession  of  the  highest  goods,  is,  at 
least  in  the  will,  an  essential  prerequisite  for  their  acquisition. 

Thus  to  the  mystic,  as  well  as  to  the  vulgar  man  or  the  com- 
plete materialist — they  are  two  different  names  for  the  same 
person — money  is  the  measure  of  values,  but  in  the  reverse  way. 
The  vulgar  man  values  goods  in  proportion  to  their  dependence 
on  money — that  is,  in  proportion  to  the  exclusiveness  of  their 
possession,  and  that  in  turn  is  in  proportion  to  their  externality 
and  materiality,  to  their  limitation.  The  mystic  values  them  in 
proportion  to  their  independence  of  money— that  is,  in  proportion 
to  the  inclusiveness  or  community  of  their  possession,  and  that  in 
turn  is  in  proportion  to  their  inwardness  and  spirituality,  to  their 
freedom  from  limitation. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  saints  felt  the  need  to  get  rid  of  possessions 
by  a voluntary  poverty.  Only  thus  could  they  free  themselves 
from  the  limits  of  particular  things  and  particular  desires,  and 
from  the  evils  resultant  on  those  limits,  to  find  God  the  infinite 
Good  in  all  things,  and  to  possess  and  enjoy  the  positive  being 
or  goodness  of  all  tilings  as  sacraments  of  Him.  Such  was  the 
joyous  poverty  of  St  Francis. 

Hence  also  the  mystic  replaces  the  desire  for  those  creatures 

1 1 mean  by  the  sin  of  society,  and  especially  of  the  plutocrats  who  organise 
society. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  195 

whose  possession  by  one  is  in  greater  or  lesser  degree  exclusive 
of  their  possession  by  others,  by  the  supernatural  love-longing 
for  the  Unlimited  God,  Whose  possession  is  rather  increased  than 
diminished  by  the  participation  of  other  souls.  Dante  in  the 
Purgatorio  has  expressed  very  beautifully  this  inclusive  character 
of  the  love  of  God,  having  especially  in  mind  the  love  of  the 
blessed  in  Heaven.  He  has  asked  Virgil  why  a certain  spirit 
had  bidden  men  fix  their  desire  where  there  was  no  need  of  ex- 
clusion of  partnership.  Virgil  replies  : 

Perch£  s’appuntan  li  vostri  desiri 
Dove  per  compagnia  parte  si  scema, 

Invidia  move  il  mantaco  ai  sospiri. 

Ma  se  1’amor  della  spera  suprema 
Torcesse  in  suso  il  desiderio  vostro, 

Non  vi  sarebbe  al  petto  quella  tema  ; 

Che  per  quanti  si  dice  piu  li  nostro 
Tanto  possiede  piu  di  ben  ciascuno, 

E piu  di  caritate  arde  in  quel  chiestro. 

(Because  your  aspirations  are  directed  thither 
(to  worldly  advantages)  where  by  participation 
some  part  is  lost,  envy  sets  in  motion 
its  bellows  upon  your  sighs.  But  if  love 
for  the  most  exalted  sphere  turned  your 
desires  upwards,  you  would  not  have  in  your 
breasts  that  fear  (of  diminution  of  portion) ; 
for  the  more  persons  there  are  by  whom 
“ Ours”  is  said  up  there,  so  much  the  more 
of  good  does  each  one  possess  and  so  much 
the  more  is  there  of  holy  Love  burning 
in  that  cloister.) 

Dante  demands  further  explanations  which  Virgil  proceeds 
to  give : 

Quello  infinito  ed  ineffabil  bene 
Che  e lassu,  cosi  corre  ad  amore 
Come  a lucido  corpo  raggio  viene. 

Tanto  si  dh,  quanto  trova  d’ardore  : 

Si  che  quantunque  carith  si  estende 
Cresce  sopfessa  l’eterno  valore 
E quanta  gente  piii  lassu  s’intende, 

Piu  v’e  da  bene  amare,  e piu  vi  s’ama, 

E come  specchio  l’uno  all  ’allro  rende. 

(That  infinite  and  ineffable  Good, 
which  is  yonder  on  high,  speeds  to  love 
(i.e.  to  unite  Himself  with  the  souls  that 


196 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

are  filled  with  it)  even  as  a sunbeam  is  drawn 
to  a translucent  body.  It  bestows  itself 
in  proportion  to  the  warmth  (of  love) : 
so  that  in  whatever  measure  Love  extends, 
the  more  does  the  Eternal  Worth  increase 
upon  it.  And  the  more  spirits  there  are 
on  high  yonder  who  love,  the  more  there  are 
to  love  perfectly  and  the  more  do  they  love 
each  other,  and  as  a mirror  one  reflects 
back  (the  love)  to  the  other.) 

Purgatorio , xv.  49-75. 

The  mystic  in  proportion  as  he  has  climbed  the  mystic  ladder 
has  already  attained  this  heavenly  love  whose  freedom  from 
limit  rejects  all  exclusiveness. 

Another  effect  of  attachment  to  particular  goods,  or  of  ex- 
clusive possession,  is  the  reference  of  these  goods  to  self  as  an 
altogether  independent  centre,  hostile  at  least  in  potency  to  all 
other  individuals.  It  builds  up  a wall  around  the  soul  whereby 
it  is  cut  off  from  other  souls  and  from  God.  Detachment  from 
this  exclusive  possession  and  from  desire  for  such  possession  unites 
the  soul  with  others  in  a common  charity  and  with  God  who  is 
sought,  known  and  loved  in  all  things.  St  John,  however,  goes 
further  and  demands  of  the  mystic  detachment  even  from  moral 
and  spiritual  goods  as  ends  in  themselves.  It  is  here  that  mystical 
theology  demands  a higher  asceticism  than  is  required  of  those 
not  called  to  the  mystical  union.  The  reason  is  that  these  highest 
goods,  though  not  valuable  by  money,  nor  exclusive  of  a common 
possession,  contain  as  creatures  a finite  element  by  which  the 
soul  is  limited  so  long  as  they  are  regarded  as  ultimate  values 
or  ends  in  themselves.  So  long  as  the  understanding  and  will 
are  bound  by  this  finite  element  they  cannot  pass  onward  to  the 
mystical  union  with  the  infinite  Being  of  God.  But,  it  will  be 
urged,  all  cannot  solely  seek  the  Uncreated  Good,  nor  even  the 
highest  created  goods,  all  cannot  be  detached  even  from  exclusive 
possession  and  from  desire  of  the  lower  goods.  The  order  and 
well-being  of  society  demand  not  only  attachment  to  the  higher 
creatures,  but  also  private  ownership  and  a pursuit  of  material 
aims.  This  is  true,  and  for  that  very  reason  St  John  addresses 
his  book  to  the  friars  and  nuns  of  the  Carmelite  reform.  The 
majority  of  mankind  cannot  be  actually  free  in  this  life  from  the 
love  and  desire  of  created  goods  for  their  own  sake,  or  even  from 
the  exclusive  possession  of  such  goods.  They  can,  however, 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  197 

and  indeed  should,  be  potentially  or  radically  free  by  making 
a constant  choice  of  God  before  all  things  and  by  a constant 
rejection  of  any  and  every  created  good  that  cannot  be  pos- 
sessed, not  only  without  positive  sin,  but  without  any  degree 
or  kind  of  opposition  to  His  known  will  in  their  regard. 
Moreover,  they  must  aim,  in  proportion  as  God  by  His  grace 
gives  the  requisite  light  and  strength,  at  a progressive  detach- 
ment of  will  from  all  created  goods  and  at  a correct  valuation 
of  such  goods.  They  should  prefer  the  more  unlimited,  more 
real  and  more  spiritual,  and  therefore  less  money- valuable 
goods,  to  the  more  limited,  less  real  and  less  spiritual,  and 
therefore  more  money-valuable  goods,  and  should  increasingly 
love  all  and  every  creature  because  and  in  the  degree  of  its  relation 
to  God. 

St  John  recognises  differences  of  vocation  based  on  differences 
of  spiritual  capacity.  “ That  soul,”  he  says,  “ which  does  not 
attain  to  that  degree  of  purity  corresponding  with  its  capacity  will 
never  obtain  true  peace  and  contentment,  because  it  has  not 
attained  to  that  detachment  and  emptiness  of  its  powers  which 
are  requisite  for  pure  union  with  God.”1  “Note,”  he  says,  as 
he  enters  on  the  discussion  of  the  active  night  of  spirit,  “ that  I 
now  address  myself  principally  to  those  who  have  already  begun 
to  enter  into  the  state  of  contemplation,  since  in  dealing  with 
beginners  a somewhat  laxer  treatment  of  this  matter  is  requisite  ” 
( Ascent , Book  II.,  chap,  vi).2  Elsewhere  he  bids  his  readers  bear 
in  mind  that  the  negation  of  spiritual  goods  demanded  in  the 
second  and  third  books  of  The  Ascent  is  not  applicable  to  beginners 
who  have  need  of  such  ( Ascent , Book  III.,  chaps,  xii.,  xxxviii). 
By  beginners  are  meant  all  who  have  not  yet  entered  into  mystical 
contemplation.  The  majority  of  souls,  however,  are  not  intended 
to  attain  on  earth  to  mystical  union  with  God,  and  they  therefore 
do  not  require,  and  are  indeed  incapable  of,  the  detachment  in- 
dispensable to  mystics.  Even  those  who  have  this  vocation  are 
not  called  to  an  equally  high  degree  of  union,  and  therefore,  not 
to  an  equally  high  degree  of  detachment.  It  is,  I think,  true  that 
St  John,  like  most  spiritual  writers,  failed  to  realise  sufficiently 
the  spiritual  incapacity  and  the  narrow  limitations  of  the  average 
man.  He  would  not,  I think,  have  agreed  that  vocations  to 

1 Ascent,  Book  II.,  chap.  v. 

3 This  is  my  own  translation  and  understanding  of  the  passage,  which,  I must 
warn  my  readers,  differs  from  that  adopted  by  David  Lewis. 


198  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

mystical  union  are  few  and  rare.1  Nevertheless  he  does  explicitly 
recognise  the  principle  of  vocation.  Only  the  few  are  called — 
here  I think  St  John  woidd  probably  have  taken  an  erroneously 
optimistic  view — to  the  detachment  requisite  for  mystical  union, 
or  at  least  for  its  more  advanced  and  continuous  degrees.  The 
majority,  though  they  must  be  fundamentally  detached,  are 
rather  called  to  serve  and  find  God  in  scantier  measures  and  by 
more  indirect  ways  which  involve  secular  activities,  and  the  posses- 
sion and  desire  of  creatures.  St  John  tells  us  that  we  must  not 
abandon  meditation  till  we  have  obtained  its  positive  substance. 
Then  only  do  its  limitations  hinder  our  ascent  to  God.  This 
principle  holds  good  universally.  Until  and  unless  grace  enables 
us  to  dispense  with  creatures  2 and  to  rise  above  their  limitations 
to  a more  immediate  union  with  God  and  that  as  our  continuous 
life  exercise — and  but  few  3 are  so  called — we  must  not  reject, 
but  use  aright  the  creatures  God  has  given  us  as  His  vestiges  and 
ministers  ; we  must  not  eradicate  but  subordinate  desires  and 
loves  for  particular  objects.  A due  proportion  must,  however, 
be  observed.  None  should  fix  his  choice  on  the  creatures  that 
are  lowest  in  the  scale  of  being,  on  the  most  superficial  activities, 
on  the  most  exclusive  and  material,  and  therefore  the  least  real 
goods.  A life  absorbed  or  dominated  by  such  goods  and  activities 
is  the  vocation  of  none.  It  would,  for  instance,  be  clearly  irrational 
for  a merchant  to  bestow  such  love  on  his  trade  as  an  artist  might 
legitimately  bestow  on  his  art,  for  art  is  more  spiritual  and  there- 
fore more  real  and  more  God-like  than  trade.  As  Baron  von  Hugel 
says  truly,  there  is  need  both  for  detachment  and  for  attachment. 
The  higher,  however,  the  spiritual  life,  the  greater  the  proportion 
of  detachment,  the  less  the  proportion  of  attachment.  It  is 
simply  a matter  of  vocation,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  St  John  admits 
vocation  in  principle,  though  probably  failing  to  realise  the  full 
consequences  of  his  admission.  A time  must,  however,  come  when 
all  the  saved  will  be  wholly  detached  from  creatures  by  death 
and  purgatory.  Then,  however,  there  will  be  no  merit  in  the 
detachment,  because  we  cannot  help  being  detached.  Attach- 

1 Nevertheless  they  are,  I am  sure,  far  more  plentiful  than  is  commonly 
thought,  and  will  be  increasingly  common  in  the  future.  Everything  points  to  a 
coming  “age  of  the  spirit’’  in  the  sense  of  a wide  diffusion  of  mystical  graces 
and  calls  (see  Lucie  Christine). 

2 As  ends  in  themselves  as  apart  from  God — and  actually  to  a very  large 
extent. 

3 I mean  few  by  comparison  with  those  who  have  no  such  vocation. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  199 

ment  will  be  no  longer  in  our  power.  Hence  those  who  do  not 
detach  themselves  while  they  still  have  the  power  of  attachment 
will  not  attain  the  same  high  degree  of  beatific  union  in  heaven 
as  the  saintly  few  who  detach  themselves  from  creatures  while 
yet  on  earth.  Nor  need  we  suppose  that  the  ultimate  actual 
detachment  from  creatures  will  be  equal  in  all  who  enjoy  the 
beatific  vision.  It  must,  however,  reach  a very  high  degree  to 
render  that  vision  possible,  a degree  so  high  that  no  deliberate 
desire  remains  for  any  creature  taken  apart  from  God.  Only 
the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God.  Therefore  the  souls  who  die 
unduly  attached  to  the  particular,  to  the  limited — that  is,  to  the 
creature  qua  creature — cannot  reach  heaven  till  they  have  passed 
through  the  night  of  detachment,  in  death  which  strips  from  them 
all  their  possessions,  even  to  the  very  body ; and  in  purgatory 
which  purifies  with  its  searching  pain  the  denuded  and  lonely 
soul  that  now  possesses  nothing  but  God  and  nevertheless  cannot 
yet  possess  Him.  Therefore  the  principle  of  the  mystical  night 
holds  good  of  every  soul  that  is  saved,  but  is  not  fully  applicable 
to  all  in  this  life.  I do  not  mean  that  even  in  death  and  purgatory 
the  detaching  loss  and  suffering  are  equal  in  all  souls,  or  necessarily 
equal  to  that  endured  by  the  saints  on  earth.  They  are,  however, 
identical  in  essence  and,  up  to  a certain  degree,  that  requisite  for 
the  lowest  grade  of  beatific  vision,  equivalent  in  amount.  But, 
it  may  be  urged,  the  suffering  of  purgatory  expiates  positive  sin, 
and  there  is  no  sin  in  failing  to  go  beyond  our  spiritual  capacities. 
To  this  I reply  that  every  soul  in  grace  is  by  that  very  fact 
capable  of  sufficient  detachment  in  this  life  to  live  primarily  for 
God,  and  to  choose  on  the  whole  the  better  part  in  dealing  with 
and  valuing  creatures.  It  is  capable  of  refusal  to  fix  so  strong  a 
desire  on  any  creature  as  to  choose  that  creature  before  the  known 
will  of  God  on  its  behalf,  even  if  that  will  bind  not  under  sin. 
Suppose  any  sold  perfectly  faithful  to  conscience,  however  un- 
enlightened. It  would  infallibly  be  led  onward  in  ever-increasing 
light  and  strength  to  a degree  of  spirituality  and  detachment 
which,  if  not  that  of  the  saints,  would  at  least  be  that  of  truly 
religious,  unworldly  people,  whose  enjoyment  of  creatures  never 
involves  bondage  to  the  desire  of  any,  and  who  seek  God  before 
and  in  all  lesser  aims.  In  communities  where  faith  is  strong,  as  in 
mediaeval  Europe  and  in  modern  Ireland,  Brittany  and  the  Tyrol, 
the  general  level  of  unworldliness — that  is,  of  detachment  from 
creatures  and  attachment  to  God  as  the  supreme  end  of  life — is 


200  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

enormously  higher  than  any  eonceivable  by  those  acquainted 
only  with  the  materialistic  civilisation  of  Western  Europe  to-day.1 
What  will  be  the  ultimate  fate  of  souls  who  have  lived  without 
God  in  the  world,  total  slaves  to  creatures,  but  who  have  appar- 
ently lacked  all  opportunity  of  doing  otherwise,  is  an  unrevealed 
secret.  Perhaps  such  never  attain  the  beatific  vision.  If  they 
do,  they  will  surely  pass  through  a purgatorial  detachment  of 
great  severity.  The  purgatorial  and  the  satisfactory  aspects  of 
purgatory  need  not  be  inseparable.  Souls  that  die  in  bondage 
to  the  finite  cannot  be  united  to  God  without  a process  of  detach- 
ment involving  suffering,  and  that  even  if  their  state  of  undue 
attachment  was  the  fault  rather  of  their  environment  than  of 
themselves.  And  after  all,  would  not  the  witness  even  of  their 
extremely  unenlightened  conscience  have  been  sufficient,  if  heeded, 
to  carry  them  far  beyond  the  point  they  actually  reached  ? How- 
ever this  may  be,  it  is  surely  clear  that  either  in  this  life  or  beyond 
the  grave  every  soul  must  be  detached  from  all  adherence  of  will 
and  understanding  to  the  essentially  finite  creature  if  it  is  to  be 
united  in  supernatural  union  of  love  and  knowledge  to  the  infinite 
God.  All  the  souls  that  are  deified  by  the  beatific  union  and  vision 
of  God  must  reach  this  infinitely  superhuman  goal  by  the  negative 
way,  must  pass  to  the  Divine  dawn  through  the  dark  night. 

This  process  of  detachment  must  always  involve  keen  suffer- 
ing. Pleasure  is  the  inevitable  accompaniment  of  the  unimpeded 
exercise  of  our  natural  activities,  of  the  free  action  of  the  life- 
impulse.  Bodily  pleasure  accompanies  the  unimpeded  activity 
of  bodily  functions,  spiritual  pleasure  the  unimpeded  activity  of 
psychical  functions.  Disordered  activity,  whether  actually  sinful 
or  merely  imperfect,  is  a going  forth  of  the  soul  to  a limited  object, 
to  the  rejection  total  or  partial  of  God,  the  unlimited  Good,  and 
this  going  forth  is  accompanied  by  pleasure.  But  the  repression 
of  a natural  activity  is  accompanied  by  pain — physical  or  psychical 
— according  to  the  nature  of  the  activity  repressed  or  impeded. 
Therefore  the  deliberate  repression  of  an  activity  by  the  will,  in 
order  to  the  avoidance  of  undue  adherence  to  the  limited,  is  accom- 
panied by  pain,  or,  rather,  pain  is  an  inseparable  aspect  of  such 
repression.  It  is  true  that  the  limitation  of  this  undue  adherence 
must  itself  cause  pain,  pain  far  greater  because  far  more  interior 
and  spiritual  than  the  pain  involved  in  the  repression  of  the  adher- 

1 Catholic  Ireland  though  geographically  part  of  Western  Europe  is,  thank 
God,  spiritually  poles  asunder.  Long  may  it  remain  so. 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  201 

ing  activity.  Nevertheless,  unlike  the  latter,  the  former  pain  is 
not  felt  immediately,  because  the  limit  involved  in  the  undue 
adhesion  is  not  reached  immediately,  whereas  the  soul  is  immedi- 
ately sensible  of  the  instrumental  limit  of  its  repression.  Nor 
only  is  the  repression  painful ; the  pain  itself  is  often  a further 
repression  of  outgoing  activity.  For  pain  renders  the  sufferer 
wholly  or  partially  impotent  to  energise  physically  or  psychically, 
as  he  otherwise  would.  The  process  of  detacliment  or  mortifica- 
tion is  therefore  essentially  painful.  Often,  as,  for  example,  in 
disease,  the  pain-repression  is  not  willed.  If,  however,  the  will 
accepts  submissively  the  involuntary  pain-repression,  that  pain- 
repression  is  thereby  rendered  voluntary.  The  pain-repression  in 
which  mortification  consists,  whether  freely  caused  or  freely  ac- 
cepted, is  a destruction  of  the  superficial  activities  that  hindered 
the  free  activity  of  the  inner  self,  of  the  limited  activities  directed 
to  creatures  that  impeded  the  unlimited  activity  directed  to  God. 
Pain  purifies,  because,  when  freely  caused  or  accepted,  it  destroys 
the  barrier  of  superficial  and  selfish  activities  that  the  soul  may  be 
free  to  find  God  in  its  central  depths.  If  man  were  sinless,  purga- 
tive pain  would  be  unnecessary  for  him.  His  lower  and  more 
superficial  activities  would  not  then  interfere  with  or  exclude,  but 
would  wholly  subserve,  the  central  activity  of  communion  with  God. 
So  it  was  with  Our  Lady  on  earth  ; so  is  it  and  so  will  it  be  with 
the  saints  in  heaven.  It  is  indeed  true  that  Our  Lady  suffered, 
and,  above  all,  supreme  was  the  suffering  endured  by  the  All 
perfect  and  infinitely  Holy  humanity  of  Her  Divine  Son.  But 
voluntary  suffering  has  another  function  than  that  of  individual 
purgation.  It  expiates  the  sins  of  other  men.  The  sinful  going 
forth  of  a man’s  will  to  the  limited  brought  a disharmony  into 
creation  and  offended  against  that  extrinsic  glory  of  God  which 
creation  should  by  its  goodness  set  forth.  This  Harmony  could 
not  be  restored,  and  creation  duly  show  forth  God’s  glory,  save  by 
a voluntary  repression  by  man  of  his  will  activity,  when  such 
repression  was  not  of  itself  necessary  to  avoid  sin  or  to  purify  the 
individual  soul.  Such  service  of  pain-repression  man  must  render. 
But  he  could  not  by  himself  do  this,  since  any  such  repression  that 
a sinful  individual  or  race  might  make  must  fall  short  of  his  or 
their  sinful  volitions  against  the  will  of  God.  Even  a sinless  man 
could  not  have  repaired  the  disorder  of  his  fallen  nature,  could  not 
have  balanced  the  sinful  rebellion  of  the  human  nature  of  which  he 
partook.  Only  the  God-man  could  make  such  redeeming  expia- 


202  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

tion  by  becoming  himself  the  Head  of  the  human  race.  In  person 
sinless,  in  nature  one  with  sinful  humanity,  indeed  its  Head,  He 
bore  our  sins.  He  could  thus  expiate  sins  not  His  own  in  virtue 
of  the  spiritual  solidarity  of  mankind,  whereby  the  sin  of  one 
member  can  be  balanced  and  redressed  by  the  voluntary  pain- 
repression  of  another.  Through  this  expiation  made  by  Him  Who 
alone  could  make  it  was  restored  the  prefect  balance  of  God’s 
satisfied  justice  in  regard  to  the  human  race  and  the  full  measure 
of  His  extrinsic  glory  for  which  that  race  was  created.  Our  Lady 
and  the  saints  in  virtue  of  their  mystical  solidarity  with  Christ, 
their  head,  have  been  able  to  partake  in  some  measure  of  His 
expiatory  suffering,  to  share  His  victimhood.  Since  expiatory 
suffering  is  grounded  in  two  fundamental  mysteries,  the  essential 
opposition  between  sin  and  sinful  humanity  and  the  Divine 
holiness,  an  opposition  not  to  be  removed  by  a merely  extrinsic 
pardon,  and  the  solidarity  of  mankind  with  our  sinful  first  parent 
on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the  sinless  Humanity  of  Christ  on  the 
other,1  its  nature  and  operation  are  beyond  the  investigation 
of  human  reason.  It  is  thus  a truth  rather  to  be  believed  by 
Christian  faith,  felt  by  religious  experience  and  seen  by  mystical 
intuition,  than  to  be  explained  and  justified  by  reason.  This 
expiation  effected  by  suffering,  while  connected  with  its  function 
as  the  purgation  of  the  individual  soul,  transcends  that  function. 

In  this  discussion  of  the  negative  or  purgative  way,  it  is  the 
more  individual  purgative  aspect  of  suffering  with  which  we  are 
concerned.  This  purificatory  suffering  is  aptly  symbolised  by  the 
figure  of  the  cross.  The  upright  of  the  cross  figures  the  central 
motion  of  the  soul  to  God  the  supreme  good.  The  cross  beam 
figures  the  superficial  activities  directed  towards  creatures  that 
cross  and  thwart  this  Godward  motion.  On  the  cross  of  their 
conflict  is  nailed  the  soul  that  persists  in  the  search  after  God. 
For  this  contradiction  results  inevitably  from  the  internal  dis- 
harmony of  man’s  fallen  nature,  in  conjunction  with  its  external 
disharmony  with  its  environment,  a disharmony  also  due,  as 
faith  teaches,  to  the  effects  of  sin.  But  this  very  conflict 
becomes  the  means  of  sanctification.  If  the  soul  persist  in  the 

1 This  solidarity  with  Christ,  though  possessed  by  all  men  in  so  far  as  all  men 
are  intrinsically  capable  of  sharing  the  redemption  of  Calvary,  is,  unlike  our 
physical  solidarity  with  Adam,  fully  effected  or  actualised  in  those  who  are  re- 
generate into  the  order  of  supernatural  grace,  a regeneration  by  which  we  are  in 
corporated,  whether  we  know  it  or  not,  into  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  redeemed 
humanity,  and  thus  are,  in  Pauline  phrase,  “ in  Christ.” 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  203 

Godward  movement,  despite  the  constant  efforts  of  the  lower 
selfish  desires,  aided  as  they  are  by  its  external  environment,  that 
movement  is  strengthened  by  the  opposition  endured  and  over- 
come, until  at  length  it  forces  all  the  lower  motions  into  subservi- 
ence to  itself.  The  pain-repression  involved  in  the  process  purifies 
the  soul  of  its  limited  activities  and  desires  and  sets  it  wholly  free 
for  perfect  union  with  God.  I do  not  mean  that  this  conflict 
exhausts  the  significance  of  the  cross  in  the  soul’s  life.  As  we  saw 
above,  it  does  not.  It  is,  however,  one,  and  that  a fundamental, 
aspect  of  the  cross. 

We  must,  however,  always  bear  in  mind  that  no  activity  or 
desire  is  sacrificed  as  bad  in  itself,  but  only  as  impeding  the  higher 
life  and  love.  When  union  with  God  has  been  fully  achieved,  all 
that  was  positive  in  the  lower  desires  and  activities  of  human  life 
is  achieved  with  and  in  it.  Then,  also,  much  may  be  safely 
restored  that  had  in  the  process  towards  union  been  rejected. 
This  restoration  will  be  complete  with  the  bodily  resurrection,  and 
its  correlative  the  new  heavens  and  earth.  Then  the  lower,  even 
the  physical,  activities  and  their  accompanying  pleasures  will 
subserve  the  Divine  union,  and  God,  being  all  in  all,  will  be  found 
in  all  the  activities  that  will  make  up  the  complete  life  of  glorified 
humanity.  From  these  will  indeed  be  absent  the  lowest,  most 
limited  functions  of  this  life,  such  as  eating,  sleeping  and  repro- 
duction. For  these  activities  are  essentially  relative  to  this 
earthly  life,  too  essentially  limited  to  co-exist  with  the  beatific 
union  with  the  Unlimited.  Those  physical  activities  and  pleasures 
will,  however,  persist  which  even  on  earth  are  channels  of  spiritual 
values — for  example,  the  activities  and  pleasures  of  sight  and 
hearing.  There  are  thus  three  stages  on  the  way  from  the  limited 
to  the  unlimited,  in  Hegelian  language,  a thesis,  an  antithesis  and 
a synthesis.1  The  thesis  is  the  positive  use  and  enjoyment  of 
creatures  as  good  in  themselves  ; the  antithesis  the  destruction 
of  their  limits  by  a temporary  detachment  from  them ; the  synthesis 
is  the  recovery  of  the  limited  in  the  unlimited — no  longer  limiting 
by  its  limits.  The  thesis  is  represented  by  naturalism,  or  pagan- 
ism; the  antithesis  is  represented  by  asceticism  and  by  Christianity 
as  manifested  on  earth,  when  the  supernatural  is  destroying  the 
bonds  that  nature  would  impose  on  its  free  action  ; the  synthesis 

1 Here,  as  in  vol.  i.,  chap.  iii. , I find  this  terminology  of  great  practical 
utility.  Indeed  the  thesis,  antithesis  and  synthesis  in  question  is  substantially 
identical  in  both  passages.  Need  I repeat,  I am  no  Hegelian  for  all  that  ! 


204  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

is  the  completely  triumphant  supernaturalism  that  receives  and 
subsumes  the  natural  as  its  instrument  and  receptacle.  This 
final  stage  begins  indeed  on  earth,  but  its  fulness  is  reserved  for 
the  world  to  come.  I have  termed  it  the  Resurrection  stage.  We 
may  perhaps  understand  the  process  better  if  we  consider  it  under 
one  aspect  alone,  the  aesthetic.  The  thesis  is  then  physical  beauty, 
the  beauty  of  Greek  sculpture,  of  the  Venus  of  Milo  and  the 
Hermes  of  Olympia.  The  antithesis  is  spiritual  beauty,  achieved 
at  the  expense  of  physical,  the  beauty  of  the  saintly  soul  burning 
in  a body  marred,  often  crippled,  by  asceticism.  It  is  the  beauty 
that  radiates  from  the  worn  countenance  of  a desert  hermit,  the 
beauty  of  early  stained  glass.1  The  synthesis  is  spiritual  beauty 
united  with  a physical  beauty  which  is  wholly  the  expression  of  the 
spiritual,  the  beauty  of  the  Resurrection.  It  is  the  beauty  of  our 
assumed  Mother  and  Queen.  In  that  beauty  the  flesh  is  glorified 
beyond  our  utmost  dreams  in  the  stainless  purity  of  entire  sub- 
servience to  the  spirit.  The  beauty  of  the  Hellenic  Aphrodite 
as  expressed  by  the  supreme  sculpture  of  ancient  Greece  is  sheer 
ugliness  by  comparison  with  that-  unimaginable  beauty  which 
adorns  the  Immaculate  Mother  of  God. 

The  Resurrection  stage,  which  is  the  synthesis  of  flesh  and 
spirit,  of  natural  and  supernatural,  of  created  and  Divine,  is  partly 
manifested  even  here  on  earth  in  certain  concomitants  and  conse- 
quences of  mystical  union,  which  are  an  earthly  foretaste  of  heaven. 
Fragrant  odours  emanate  from  the  bodies  of  saints  miraculously 
incorrupt,  melodies  are  heard  sweeter  than  our  sweetest  music, 
visions  are  seen  wherein  are  landscapes  of  ravishing  beauty, 
garments  of  exquisite  shape  and  tint,  jewels  burning  with  a glow 
of  rich  colour  beyond  that  of  earthly  gems,  and  wherein  walk 
the  forms  of  saints,  even  of  friends,  arrayed  in  superhuman 
loveliness.2  St  John  has,  I believe,  this  Resurrection  synthesis 
in  mind — I mean  its  first  beginnings  on  earth  in  the  passages 
such  as  that  where  he  speaks  of  the  pre-eminent  enjoyment  of  all 
things  seen  or  heard  possessed  by  the  truly  detached  ( Ascent , 
III.  xxix). 

No  positive  being  of  the  creature  is,  therefore,  finally  lost  by 


1 Christian  art  fluctuated  between  antithesis  and  synthesis,  and  finally  relapsed 
at  the  Renaissance  into  the  mere  thesis  and  became  pagan  once  more. 

2 See  St  Teresa,  A utobiography.  Doubtless  the  proximate  cause  or  means  of 
all  these  phenomena  is  purely  subjective  and  natural,  not,  therefore,  their  first  or 
ultimate  cause.* 


THE  NEGATIVE  WAY  205 

detachment.  It  will  be  restored  later,  now  no  longer  a barrier 
between  the  soul  and  the  infinite,  but  a door  wide  open  to  the  In- 
finite. In  and  through  the  limited  the  unlimited  will  be  manifest. 
God  will  be  All  in  all.  For  the  mystic  this  begins  even  in  this  life. 
He  finds  God  in  the  beauties  of  nature  and  art,  instead  of  being 
detained  and  barred  from  Him  by  their  limits.  The  soul,  there- 
fore, possesses  all  things,  because  it  possesses  Him  in  Whom  are  all 
things,  and,  as  St  John  points  out  in  the  Canticle,  is  all  things,  since 
He  is  eminently  their  positive  being.  “When  the  soul,”  says 
Mother  Cecilia,  “ truly  possesses  and  knows  God  and  is  transformed 
in  Him,  she  possesses  eminently  all  things,  just  because  she  is  not 
attached  to  any  of  them,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a creature,  and  in  particular, 
as  are  the  souls  who  have  not  tasted  the  immensity  of  God.” 
“ The  soul,  by  her  possession  of  God,  possesses  all  things  after  the 
fashion  most  similar  to  Him.”  “Having  nothing,  yet  possessing 
all  things.”  Thus  does  St  Paul  describe  souls  truly  detached.  It 
is  but  the  creaturely  limitations  of  creatures  that  such  souls  have 
rejected— though  the  process  has  required  much  rejection  of 
creatures  themselves  for  that  end.  Now  they  possess  all  creatures 
again  in  a higher  and  altogether  positive  way.  “ All  things  are 
yours  ”— that  is,  theirs  who  have  nothing — in  and  for  its  own 
limited  and  limiting  self  apart  from  God  ; all  things  received  in 
and  with  Him  Who  is  the  All.  Now  dawns  that  morning  know- 
ledge of  creatures  in  God  spoken  of  by  St  John.  For  now  the 
mystic  realises  the  truth  discussed  in  a previous  chapter  that  the 
positive  Being  of  creatures  is  God  reflected  in  them,  and  their 
creatureliness  a negation  of  being  ; so  that  apart  from  him  they 
are  like  accidents  without  a substance.  The  attachment  that  is 
opposed  to  detachment  once  fully  destroyed,  a new  attachment 
which  is  compatible  with  detachment,  because  it  is  attachment  to 
the  positive  substance  of  creatures  alone — that  is,  to  God  in  them, 
and  not  to  their  creaturely  limits — comes  into  being  to  be  per- 
fected with  the  perfection  of  Divine  love  and  therefore  of  detach- 
ment itself  in  the  beatific  vision  and  its  complement  the  resurrec- 
tion. The  imperfect  law  of  Sinai,  the  stone  engraven  ministry 
of  death,  proclaimed  Thou  shalt  not.  The  perfect  law  of  Christ, 
the  ministry  of  life  written  in  the  heart,  is  no  longer  Thou  shalt 
not,  but  thou  shalt,  thou  shalt  love  with  thine  entire  being. 

1 It  is  true  that  this  positive  precept  is  found  even  verbally  in  the  old  law. 
The  new  law  is  not  without  its  anticipation  in  the  old.  It  has,  moreover,  retained 
the  negative  decalogue  of  Sinai.  But  the  emphasis  has  been  completely  reversed. 


206  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

In  this  difference  is  shown  the  imperfection  and  transience  of 
denial  and  rejection,  the  perfection  and  finality  of  affirmation  and 
acceptance.  Sacrifice,  mortification,  detachment,  this  is  the  way, 
not  the  goal.  The  goal  is  the  achievement  of  fulness  of  life,  of 
entire  reality.  How  negation  is  the  way,  the  only  way,  to  this 
goal  I have  sought  to  indicate.  Such  indication  is  all  that  is 
possible.  In  the  deep  things  of  the  soul  experience  alone  gives 
true  knowledge. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT 

To  the  deep,  to  the  deep, 

Down,  down 

Through  the  shade  of  sleep, 

Through  the  cloudy  strife 
Of  Death  and  of  life  ; 

Through  the  veil  and  the  bar 
Of  things  which  seem  and  are, 

Even  to  the  steps  of  the  remotest  throne, 

Down,  down. 

Through  the  grey,  void  abysm , 

Down,  down 

Where  the  air  is  no  prism, 

And  the  moon  and  the  stars  are  not 
And  the  cavern-crags  wear  not 
The  radiance  of  Heaven, 

Nor  the  gloom  to  Earth  given 

Where  there  is  one  pervading,  one  alone, 

Down,  down. 

Shelley, 

Prometheus  Unbound,  Act  II.,  scene  iii. 

The  flight  of  the  alone  to  the  Alone.  Plotinus. 

The  night  of  purgation  is  divided  by  St  John  into  parts.  In  the 
second  chapter  of  the  first  book  and  in  the  second  chapter  of  the 
second  book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  he  speaks  of  three 
nights.  The  first  night  is  detachment  from  the  things  of  the  world 
of  which  I have  already  spoken  at  length  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
Sb  John  calls  it  the  night  of  sense.  It  is  the  Active  Night  of  sense. 
The  second  night  he  calls  the  night  of  faith.  It  is  the  detachment 
from  all  spiritual  realities  less  than  God  Himself — the  Active  Night 
207 


208  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  the  Spirit.  The  third  night  is  evidently  a passive  communica- 
tion of  God  to  the  soul,  and  therefore  part  of  the  mystical  process. 
I believe  that  by  this  third  night  is  meant  the  Passive  Night, 
chiefly  but  not  exclusively  the  Passive  Night  of  the  Spirit.1  Im- 
mediately after  this  night  follows  “union  with  the  bride  which 
is  the  wisdom  of  God.”  In  the  second  passage  where  three  nights, 
or  more  strictly  three  parts  of  one  night,  are  mentioned,  he  says  : 
“ When  these  three  parts  of  the  night  have  been  passed  . . . God 
illuminates  the  soul  supernaturally  with  the  ray  of  His  Divine 
Light  . . . which  is  the  beginning  of  the  perfect  union  which  ensues 
zvhen  the  third  night  is  over.’’’’  Are  the  three  nights  finished  before 
the  beginning  of  the  supreme  union,  or  is  only  the  perfection  of 
that  union  deferred  till  then  ? Is  this  perfect  union,  spoken  of  as 
the  union  with  the  Divine  bride,  the  beatific  vision,  or  the  highest 
degree  of  mystical  union,  termed  the  transforming  union,  and 
spiritual  marriage  ? I believe  that  no  absolutely  certain  answer 
can  be  given.  St  John’s  language  is  extremely  obscure,  perhaps 
not  altogether  consistent.  Indeed  there  was,  I think,  a fluctua- 
tion in  his  own  mind.  In  one  sense  the  night  lasts  till  death  so 
that  even  the  transforming  union  is  included  in  the  third  night. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  “ beginning  ” at  least  of  the  “ perfect 
union  ” and  therefore  part  of  the  “ union  with  the  bride  ” takes 
place  in  this  life,  and  thus  at  least  the  beginning  of  that  union  is 
the  transforming  union  on  earth.  Yet  we  are  told  that  the  union 
in  general  and  in  the  second  passage  that  even  its  beginning  takes 
place  when  the  three  nights  are  passed.  Therefore  the  trans- 
forming union  is  in  some  sense  at  least  not  part  of  the  third  night. 
Indeed  elsewhere  St  John  distinctly  terms  the  transforming  union 
day.2  Moreover,  as  we  shall  see,  the  passive  night  is  essentially 
constituted  by  a beginning  of  the  perfect  mystic  union.  Therefore 
I think  that  it  is  most  conducive  to  clearness  if  we  identify  the 
passive  night  with  the  third  night,  and  regard  the  transforming 
union  as  the  dawn  of  the  supernatural  day  following.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  must  not  forget  that  it  is  but  the  dawn,  with  its 
dim  lights  and  lingering  shadows,  and  that  it  therefore  belongs 
also  to  the  night.  Here  as  elsewhere  we  need  to  bear  in  mind 
that  our  clear  divisions  cannot  adequately  represent  the  imper- 
ceptibly graduated  process  which  constitutes  the  mystical  way. 

1 Bride  is  here  used,  not  bridegroom,  on  account  of  a reference  to  the  story 
of  Tobias. 

a Ascent,  Book  II.,  chap.  xiv.  ad  fin. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  209 

Hence  the  obscurity  and  hesitation  of  St  John’s  language.  In 
these  two  chapters  alone  does  St  John  speak  of  three  nights,  and 
they  ar<  therefore  somewhat  anomalous.  Elsewhere  he  speaks 
consistently  of  two  nights — the  night  of  Sense  and  the  night  of 
Spirit.  If,  however,  we  consider  his  actual  teaching  rather  than 
his  terminology,  it  is  plain  that  there  are  four  distinct  nights 
discussed  by  St  John — namely,  the  Active  Night  of  Sense,  the 
Active  Night  of  Spirit,  the  Passive  Night  of  Sense,  the  Passive 
Night  of  Spirit.  The  Active  Nights  constitute  the  purgation 
accomplished  by  the  soul’s  own  will,  of  course  with  the  assistance 
of  Divine  grace.  The  two  Passive  Nights  constitute  the  deeper 
purgation  effected  in  the  soul  by  the  mystical  experience  itself — - 
that  is,  by  immediate  Divine  action  in  the  soul  that  has  reached  a 
certain  degree  of  sanctifying  grace  ; the  effect  on  the  soul  of  the 
special  relationship  with  God  constituted  by  certain  stages  of  the 
mystical  union.  The  Passive,  unlike  the  Active,  Nights  are  not 
an  ascetical  preparation  for,  or  accompaniment  of,  the  mystical 
union,  but  are  themselves  constituent  parts  of  that  union.  It  was 
apparently  the  intention  of  St  John  to  treat  of  the  four  nights 
in  a work  composed  of  four  books.  The  title  of  the  work  was  to 
be  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel , and  the  two  later  books,  whose 
subject  would  be  the  passive  purgation,  were  to  receive  the  sub- 
title of  The  Dark  Night  of  the  Soul.  As  it  is,  the  work  has  come 
down  to  us  in  the  form  of  two  distinct  treatises — both  unfinished. 
Both,  however,  take  the  form  of  a comment  on  one  and  the  same 
mystical  poem — the  exquisite  lyric  beginning  “ En  una  noche 
escura  ” (“  In  a dark  night  ”).  Moreover,  in  the  work  as  it  stands 
we  have  references  to  the  first  book  of  The  Dark  Night  as  the  third 
book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  The  original  plan  has  on 
the  whole  been  adhered  to.  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  deals 
with  the  active  night  or  purgation,  The  Dark  Night  of  the  Soul 
with  the  passive  night  or  purgation.  The  first  book  of  The  Ascent 
treats  of  the  Active  Night  of  Sense ; the  first  book  of  The  Dark 
Night,  of  the  Passive  Night  of  Sense  ; and  the  second  book  of  The 
Dark  Night,  of  the  Passive  Night  of  Spirit.  The  discussion,  how- 
ever, of  the  active  night  of  spirit  is  not  confined  to  the  second  book 
of  The  Ascent,  but  occupies  also  an  unfinished  third  book,  which, 
moreover,  includes  matter  belonging  strictly  to  the  Active  Night  of 
Sense.  St  John’s  treatment  of  the  active  night  of  spirit  required 
the  discussion  not  only  of  the  purification  of  the  understanding  by 
faith,  the  subject  of  the  second  book  of  The  Ascent,  but  also  of  the 


o 


210  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

purification  of  the  memory  by  hope  and  of  the  will  by  charity, 
the  subjects  of  the  third  book.  But  the  purification  of  the  will 
includes  its  purification  from  the  desire  of  worldly  goods,  and  thus 
the  saint  was  led  to  return  upon  his  discussion  of  the  active  night 
of  sense.  Moreover,  the  treatment  of  the  active  night  of  spirit 
includes  a discussion  of  the  position  to  be  adopted  by  the  mystic 
towards  the  phenomena  of  the  passive  night  of  sense,  and  thus  a 
treatment  of  that  night  from  the  active  standpoint.  Hence  certain 
chapters  of  the  second  book  of  The  Ascent  cover  the  same  ground  as 
certain  chapters  of  the  first  book  of  The  Dark  Night  (chaps,  xii., 
xiii.,  xiv.  and  xv.  of  The  Ascent , Book  II.,  and  chaps,  ix.  and  x. 
of  The  Dark  Night,  Book  I).  There  is  clearly  a certain  confusion 
in  the  arrangement  of  St  John’s  treatises,  owing  to  a conflict  and 
overlapping  of  the  principles  on  which  that  arrangement  is  based. 
Nothing  is  harder  than  to  arrange  a treatise  on  mysticism  where 
there  is  such  a lack  of  sharply  defined  boundaries. 

St  John  says  of  the  three  nights  of  chap.  ii.  of  The  Ascent 
that  they  are  parts  of  one  night.  By  this  is  meant  that  they  are 
aspects  of  one  fundamental  principle,  that  of  purgation  or  detach- 
ment, the  principle  discussed  in  the  previous  chapter.  It  should 
also  be  noticed  that  the  nights  do  not  follow  in  chronological  order. 
It  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  the  active  night  of  sense  is  the  first 
to  occur  in  the  spiritual  life.  Every  Christian  must  be  to  some 
extent  in  that  night  if  he  is  even  attempting  to  lead  a Christian 
life.  For  this  night  is  simply  the  practice  of  mortification  with 
regard  to  the  things  of  earth.  It  is  also  obvious  that  this  night 
cannot  entirely  end  till  death.  So  long  as  man  possesses  his 
earthly  body  he  is  in  some  danger,  however  slight,  of  yielding  un- 
duly to  the  desire  of  bodily  and  worldly  goods  and  pleasures.  “ I 
chastise  my  body,”  wrote  the  Apostle  who  had  ascended  to  the 
third  heaven,  “ lest,  having  preached  to  others,  I myself  should 
become  a reprobate.”  Nevertheless,  when  a certain  stage  in  the 
spiritual  life  has  been  reached,  the  mortification  of  worldly  and 
sensual  desires  becomes  secondary  in  the  Christian  life.  The  soul 
is  so  eager  for  spiritual  satisfaction  that  it  has  almost  wholly 
ceased  to  value  the  goods  of  earth.  Henceforward  the  purgation 
is  primarily  a spiritual  purgation,  the  detachment  of  will  and 
understanding  from  adherence  to  spiritual  and  supernatural  goods 
that  are  not  God  Himself,  and  which  the  soul  is  tempted  to  seek 
and  value  for  their  own  sake.  What  these  are  we  shall  consider 
when  we  come  to  discuss  in  greater  detail  the  Active  Night  of 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  211 

Spirit.  This  Active  Night  of  Spirit  also  continues  of  necessity  to 
the  end  of  life,  for  there  are  always  secondary  spiritual  goods  in- 
tended by  God  as  means  to  union  with  Himself  in  which  the  soul 
is  tempted  to  rest  as  ends  in  themselves.  Prominent  among  these 
are  certain  phenomena  concomitant  upon  the  mystical  union. 
Hence  the  active  night  of  spirit  is,  in  its  later  stages,  contem- 
poraneous with  the  mystic  union,  and  therefore  with  the  two 
passive  nights  which  are  stages  of  that  union.  Only  when  this 
union  has  reached  its  final  earthly  stage  does  the  active  night  of 
spirit  fall  into  the  background  of  the  spiritual  life,  since  its  main 
work  has  been  accomplished.  Since,  however,  this  final  stage  is  of 
extreme  rarity  even  among  those  who  attain  to  mystical  prayer, 
the  active  night  of  spirit  is  one  of  the  predominant  features  of 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  majority  of  mystics. 

That  portion  of  the  mystical  experience  which  constitutes  the 
first  passive  purgation  known  as  the  passive  night  of  sense  occurs 
at  a stage  in  the  spiritual  life  when  the  active  night  of  spirit  is  pre- 
dominant. In  dealing  with  it  the  mystic  needs  to  practise  the 
principles  of  the  active  night  of  spirit.  Therefore  St  John  treats 
of  it  from  this  point  of  view  in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel,  when 
he  is  discussing  the  active  night  in  detail.  The  second  passive 
night,  that  of  the  spirit,  begins  far  later  in  the  mystical  way  and  is 
of  far  rarer  occurrence.  Its  working  is  such  as  to  leave  the  soul 
powerless  to  do  aught  but  endure  in  passivity  and  patience.  It 
occurs,  therefore,  when  the  active  night  of  the  spirit  has  achieved 
already  the  greater  part  of  its  work.  Hence  it  finds  no  place  in 
The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  The  two  passive  nights  will  be  dis- 
cussed in  their  place  in  the  mystical  way.  The  remainder  of  this 
chapter  will  be  devoted  to  a discussion  of  the  active  night  of 
spirit  as  treated  by  St  John  in  the  second  and  third  books 
of  The  Ascent. 

Of  the  Active  Night  of  Sense — that  is,  detachment  from  all 
sensible  and  material  goods,  and  the  mortification  and  rejection  of 
all  desire  for  such — nothing  further  need  be  said.  I have  already 
discussed  it  in  the  last  chapter  when  explaining  the  principle  of 
detachment. 

The  Active  Night  of  Spirit  depends  essentially  on  the  Negative 
knowledge  of  God,  which  has  been  already  discussed  in  my  chapter 
on  the  Divine  Transcendence.  It  is  the  detachment  of  the  soul 
from  all  spiritual  objects  and  concepts  that  are  distinctly  appre- 
hensible by  its  natural  or  supernatural  activities  in  this  life,  and 


212  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

which  are  therefore  essentially  limited,  and  in  virtue  of  this 
essential  limitation  infinitely  distant  from  the  unlimited  Being  of 
God.  We  have,  however,  already  seen  that  this  detachment  does 
not  apply  in  the  same  sense  to  the  mysteries  of  Christ,  since  the 
Sacred  Humanity  and  its  mysteries  are  in  personal  union  with 
the  Infinite  Godhead.  By  this  detachment  from  the  limited  the 
substance  of  the  soul  and  its  fundamental  powers  are  set  free  to 
receive  the  Being  and  Operation  of  God.  The  manner  in  which 
this  is  to  be  effected  in  the  understanding  forms  the  subject  of  the 
second  book  of  The  Ascent,  in  the  memory  and  will,  the  subject  of 
the  third  book.  The  quintessence,  however,  of  St  John’s  teaching 
is  contained  in  his  account  of  the  purgation  of  the  understanding. 
With  relentless  logic  St  John  rejects  all  rest  in  the  limited,  even  in 
limited  presentations  of  Divine  truth.  All  such  must,  he  says,  be 
set  aside  by  the  mystic.  By  faith  alone  can  he  attain  the  immedi- 
ate and  supernatural  knowledge  of  God,  which  is  the  goal  of  his 
understanding.  Faith  and  love  are  indeed  the  two  great  means 
of  mystical  union.  It  is  by  faith  that  the  soul  is  united  with  God 
through  its  cognitive  aspect  or  faculty,  as  it  is  by  love  or  charity 
that  the  soul  is  united  with  God  through  its  conative  aspect  or 
faculty.  Faith,  as  Catholic  theology  teaches,  is  an  infused  super- 
natural gift  Avhereby  we  are  enabled  to  believe  without  doubting 
whatever  God  has  revealed.  If  we  could  understand— that  is,  if 
we  could  grasp  the  internal  coherence  of  the  truths  of  revelation, 
together  with  their  coherence  with  the  totality  of  human  experi- 
ence— there  would  be  neither  need  nor  scope  for  faith.  It  is,  how- 
ever, of  the  essence  of  revealed  dogma  to  belong  to  a sphere  that 
transcends  the  limited  operations  of  the  human  understanding. 
They  are,  as  it  were,  bridges  between  the  finite  and  the  Divine 
Infinity,  between  the  comprehensible  and  the  Divine  incompre- 
hensibility. They  touch  the  comprehensible,  for  otherwise  they 
would  be  meaningless  formulas.  But  at  the  other  extreme  they 
merge  into  the  incomprehensibility  of  the  Divine  Being,  wherein 
also  they  are  united  at  a point  beyond  the  reach  of  our  understand- 
ing. We  may  picture  the  dogmas  of  revelation  as  streams  that 
take  their  rise  in  the  firm  dry  land  of  the  limited  and  compre- 
hensible world,  which  is  the  proper  sphere  of  the  human  under- 
standing, but  flow  onwards  till  they  meet  unseen  in  the  ocean  of 
the  Godhead.  It  is  the  work  of  faith  to  reach  this  Divine  Ocean 
by  following  the  streams  of  dogma.  Faith,  therefore,  cannot  rest 
in  aught  that  reason  can  comprehend.  It  either  rejects  such  pre- 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  213 

sentations  of  Divine  truth,  or  if,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Incarnational 
dogmas,  it  accepts  them,  it  passes  in  them  and  through  them  to 
the  infinite  Being  therein  revealed  and  found.  It  is  indeed  true 
that  reason  also  leads  the  soul  to  a knowledge  of  the  Divine  in- 
comprehensibility. Reason  cannot,  however,  bring  the  soul  into 
living  contact  with  it.  Supernatural  faith  can  alone  lead  the 
understanding  to  this  union.  By  faith  we  accept  and  adhere  to 
truths  concerning  the  work  and  Being  of  God  which  we  cannot 
understand,  and  so  pass  beyond  the  intelligible  to  grasp  the  Un- 
intelligible Unity  whence  these  truths  proceed.  “Faith,”  says 
St  John,  “ teaches  us  what  the  understanding  cannot  teach  by  the 
light  of  nature  and  of  reason,  being,  as  the  Apostle  saith,  ‘ the 
substance  of  things  to  be  hoped  for.’  And  though  the  under- 
standing firmly  and  certainly  assents  to  the  doctrines  of  faith,  yet 
it  cannot  discover  them,  for  if  the  understanding  discovered  them 
there  would  be  no  room  for  faith,  and  though  the  understanding 
derives  certainty  from  faith,  yet  it  does  not  derive  clearness  but 
rather  obscurity  ” ( Ascent , ii.  6).  “As  God  is  darkness  to  our 
understanding,  so  faith  also  blinds  and  darkens  our  understand- 
ing ” (that  is,  it  removes  the  clear  ideas  which  are  essentially  and 
necessarily  limited).  “ Thus  by  this  means  alone — that  is,  faith— 
God  manifests  Himself  to  the  soul  in  the  Divine  Light,  which  sur- 
passes all  understanding,  and  therefore  the  greater  the  faith  of  the 
soul  the  more  is  that  soul  united  to  God.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
St  Paul  when  he  said,  ‘ He  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that 
He  is,’  ” (that  is  to  say,  be  must  grasp  a Being  whose  nature  is  in 
this  life  wholly  incomprehensible).  “ Such  an  one  must  walk  by 
faith,  with  his  understanding  blind  and  in  darkness  in  faith  only, 
for  in  this  darkness  God  unites  Himself  to  the  understanding, 
being  Himself  hidden  in  it  ” ( Ascent , ii.  9).  This  Johannine 
teaching  brings  home  to  us  the  meaning  of  that  pregnant  scriptural 
definition  of  faith  as  “ the  substance  of  things  to  be  hoped  for.” 
For  faith  is  a possession  or  apprehension  of  the  Divine  Being  that 
will  be  seen  in  heaven  and  cannot  be  apprehended  by  the  distinct 
concepts  of  human  reason.  Nothing  seen  even  intellectually  can 
be  the  substance  of  that  which  we  hope  for  in  heaven — -namely,  the 
clear  knowledge  of  God.  If  the  unveiled  or  clear  knowledge  of 
God  is  what  is  hoped  for,  faith — that  is,  the  obscure  or  veiled 
apprehension  of  God — is  the  substance  of  it.  What  can  be  seen — 
that  is,  clearly  conceived — by  human  reason  cannot  be  that  sub- 
stance, but  must  of  necessity  fall  infinitely  short  of  it.  That 


214  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

substance  must  therefore  be  an  apprehension  which  is  not 
distinct  understanding,  and  this  is  supernatural  faith.  Hence  it 
is  that  faith  must  be  a gift  supernaturally  infused.  No  natural 
principle  could  be  adequate  to  cause  such  an  apprehension  of  the 
Divine  Being  as  is  the  veiled  substance  of  that  beatific  vision, 
which  is  itself  a participation  of  the  Divine  self-knowledge  and 
therefore  of  God  Himself.  As  grace  to  glory,  so  is  faith  to  beatific 
vision.  When  sanctifying  grace  is  present  in  the  soul  the  under- 
standing is  emancipated  from  the  limits  of  natural  knowledge  and 
raised  to  a supernatural  apprehension  of  the  transcendent  God- 
head. This  apprehension  is  faith. 

At  first  this  apprehension  is  mediate,  is,  indeed,  simply  that 
supernatural  grasp  or  apprehension  of  God  beyond  the  limits  of 
natural  reason  which  is  involved  in  firm  assent  to  His  supernatural 
Self -revelation,  through  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  As  faith 
deepens,  the  apprehension  of  God  through  faith  becomes  increas- 
ingly stronger  and  moie  immediate.  A direct  apprehension  1 of 
the  Godhead  incomprehensible  to  our  reason,  but  the  super- 
natural Object  of  faith,  is  imprinted  on  the  central  depths  of  the 
soul,  on  the  root  of  the  will  that  grasps  God  by  love.  The  cognitive 
element  of  mystical  experience  is  the  apprehension  of  faith  exalted 
to  an  immediate  consciousness  or  intuition  of  the  veiled  Being  of 
God  present  to  and  in  the  soul.  Now  that  the  soul  has  left  behind 
it  comprehensible  notions  of  God  and  His  Revelation,  it  receives 
and  grasps  firmly  this  incomprehensible  Divine  Presence  of  which 
in  mystical  experience  it  is  thus  immediately  conscious.  Never- 
theless this  conscious  and  immediate  apprehension  of  the  Godhead 
is  still  the  obscure  knowledge  of  faith,  the  adherence  of  the 
spiritual  consciousness  or  understanding  to  an  unintelligible  and 
therefore  a hidden  Being.  So  must  it  remain  as  long  as  life 
endures.  Perhaps  certain  saints  have,  as  St  John  maintains,2 
enjoyed  a momentary  fruition  of  God  in  which  faith  is  superseded 
by  a Divine  light  that  is  a transitory  and  imperfect  gleam  of  the 
light  of  glory.  This,  however,  is  not  mystical  intuition,  which  is 
but  faith  enormously  deepened  and  strengthened.  It  is  true  that 
Mother  Cecilia  says  (Trans.,  st.  11)  that  in  the  highest  mystical 
experience  “ a supernatural  light  ” is  added  to  faith.  She  even 
says  that  the  soul  no  longer  needs  faith  now  that  it  knows  by  this 

1 It  may  be  termed,  if  you  will,  an  idea,  but  it  is  an  idea  that  is  not  positive 
and  clear,  but  negative  and  obscure. 

-Ascent,  II.  xxiv. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  215 

Divine  experience  and  participation  of  the  Divine  Being  {Trans., 
st.  12).  This  language  is,  however,  contrary  to  St  John’s  more 
accurate  teaching.  St  John  speaks  of  mystical  knowledge  “ as 
illuminated  faith  ” indeed,  but  nevertheless  as  faith.  Moreover, 
the  conscious  aspect  of  the  mystical  union  is  plainly  identified 
with  Faith  when  St  John  says  that  “ this  obscure,  loving  know- 
ledge which  is  Faith  serves  in  this  life  as  the  medium  of  the  Divine 
Union,  as  the  light  of  gl ory  serves  in  the  next  life  as  the  medium 
of  the  clear  vision  of  God  ” ( Ascent , ii.  24).  The  author  of  The 
Obscure  Knowledge  also  admits  no  light  intermediate  between 
that  of  faith  and  glory,  save  an  actual  and  therefore  a passing 
light  by  which  the  soul  understands  special  mysteries  (ch.  i.  3). 
This  light  is  that  by  which  intellectual  visions  are  effected,  and  is 
not  the  mystical  intuition  whose  object  is  no  particular  mystery, 
but  the  veiled  Godhead  incomprehensible  by  any  concept  or 
distinct  knowledge.  The  supernatural  light  mentioned  by  Mother 
Cecilia  must  not  therefore  be  regarded  as  a new  and  higher  mode 
of  knowledge  superadded  to  faith,  but  as  an  extraordinary  in- 
tensification of  faith  which  renders  it  a vivid  and  immediate 
intuition  of  the  unintelligible  Godhead. 

St  John  tells  us  plainly  in  The  Living  Flame  (st.  4)  that  till 
death  the  veil  of  faith  abides.  Moreover,  we  gather  from  Mother 
Cecilia  that  the  highest  flashes  of  mystical  insight  are  those  in 
which  we  realise  most  fully  the  Divine  Incomprehensibility.1  It 
is  indeed  true  that  an  extraordinary  intellectual  insight  into  the 
reality,  necessity  and  internal  coherence  of  certain  revealed 
mysteries — for  example,  the  Blessed  Trinity — is  often  given  to 
those  in  the  highest  stages  of  mystical  prayer.  Such  insight,  how- 
ever, serves  only  to  deepen  the  sense  of  the  infinity  and  unin- 
telligibility of  the  Divine  Nature.  This  indeed  is  the  meaning 
of  the  extraordinary  paradox  of  The  Obscure  Knowledge  that  the 
supreme  effect  of  faith  is  the  knowledge  that  God  is  not  anything 
cognisable  by  human  knowledge.  The  highest  mystical  know- 
ledge of  God  is  like  the  unseen  embrace  of  lovers  in  a dark  room 
The  depths  of  the  soul  are  felt  to  be  embraced  by  His  unintelligible 
Presence.  Not  till  death  releases  the  understanding  from  its 
bondage  to  the  data  of  sense  as  the  sole  ultimate  source  of  distinct 
ideas  will  the  darkness  pass  away  and  the  light  of  glory  illumine 
the  soul  to  see  the  face  of  God.  St  John  indeed  compares  faith 
to  the  pitchers  carried  by  Gideon’s  soldiers  wherein  were  hidden 

1 Transformation,  stanzas  i,  4,  6 and  10. 


216  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

lamps.  “ So,”  he  says,  “ faith,  of  which  these  pitchers  were  a 
figure,  contains  the  Divine  light — that  is,  the  truth  of  what  God  is  in 
Himself ; and  at  the  end  of  this  mortal  life,  when  the  work  of  faith 
is  done  and  the  pitchers  broken,  the  light  and  glory  of  the  Deity 
therein  hidden  will  shine  forth  ” ( Ascent , ii.  9). 

The  work  of  the  active  purgation  of  spirit  is  therefore  the  pro- 
gressive deepening  of  faith  by  persistent  refusal  to  rest  in  or  accept 
any  distinct  knowledge  concerning  God  and  His  mysteries.  The 
first  class  of  apprehensions  to  be  rejected  are  sensible  phenomena 
of  a religious  character.  St  John  forbids  the  soul  to  rest  in  these, 
even  if  caused  by  God,  for  otherwise  it  will  be  detained  by  the 
sensible  appearance,  instead  of  passing  onwards  to  grasp  by  faith 
the  spiritual  reality  inapprehensible  of  sense  or  reason.  He  also 
treats  these  external  sensible  manifestations  as  the  lowest  media 
of  Divine  communication.  For  since  the  immediately  sensible 
is  the  most  limited  and  particular  of  all  our  apprehensions,  it 
contains  the  minimum  of  reality  and  is  thus  the  least  adequate 
presentation  of  the  Ultimate  Reality.  Since  the  time  of  St  John 
the  progress  of  psychology  has  underlined  his  warning  against 
these  sensible  visions,  auditions  and  the  like  by  bringing  home  to 
us  the  subjective  element  inherent  in  all  such.  Whatever  their 
ultimate  cause,  they  are  always  conditioned  and  largely  con- 
structed by  the  subjective  consciousness  or  subconsciousness  of 
the  recipient.1 

Huysmans,  in  his  Vie  de  Ste  Lidwine,  points  out  that  the 
saint’s  visions  of  the  other  world  are  in  close  relationship  with 
the  Flemish  sacred  art  of  her  period,  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
visions  of  St  Mechtilde  are  like  the  illuminations  of  a mediaeval 
Missal  or  Breviary,  whose  glowing  colours  and  conventional 
designs  are  faithfully  reproduced.  Indeed  I am  certain  that  such 
a dependence  of  the  form  of  mystical  visions  on  the  art  and  litera- 
ture of  the  seer’s  epoch  and  entourage  would  be  found  to  hold  good 
universally.  There  is  also  abundant  evidence  that  such  visions 
and  other  sensible  experiences  are  largely  conditioned  by  the 
objects  of  devotion  used  by  their  recipient.  A striking  instance 
of  this  is  afforded  by  the  stigmatic  scourging  of  Gemma  Galgani, 

1 Throughout  the  following  discussion  I treat  together  sensible  and  imaginary- 
visions  and  auditions,  though  these  are  separated  by  St  John.  It  is  impossible 
to  demarcate  the  two  classes  of  phenomena.  Though  the  former  seem  more 
objective  than  the  latter,  both  are  largely  subjective,  the  former  often  to  a greater 
degree  than  the  latter. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  217 

the  passion  mystic  of  Lucca.  Of  this  scourging  a witness  wrote  : 
“ If  you  wish  to  form  some  idea  of  it,  recall  to  mind  the  great 
crucifix  . . . before  which  Gemma  was  in  the  habit  of  praying.  She 
was  like  that.  The  same  livid  marks,  the  same  torn-open  gashes 
in  the  skin  and  flesh  in  the  same  parts  of  the  body,  equally  long  and 
deep  and  equally  horrifying  to  behold  ” ( Life  of  Gemma  Galgani, 
by  Fr.  Germano,  English  trs.,  pp.  68-69).  Who  can  doubt  the 
existence  here  of  an  element  of  autosuggestion  ? Equally  indica- 
tive of  subjectivity  is  the  fact  that  no  revelation  or  vision  wholly 
precedes  the  external  growth  of  devotion  to  its  object.  No  father 
of  the  desert  ever  saw  a vision  of  St  Joseph.  Indeed  in  this  same 
Life  of  Gemma  we  find  that  her  visions  of  Blessed  Gabriel  of  the 
Dolours  did  not  begin  until  she  had  read  his  life,  and  that  even 
then  the  visions  were  preceded  by  a sense  of  his  invisible  presence 
( Life  of  Gemma  Galgani,  pp.  40-41).  Moreover,  no  special  revela- 
tion has  ever  made  known  a dogma  of  faith  to  a soul  that  had 
never  learned  that  dogma  from  human  instruction.  No  devout 
Sufi  or  Buddhist  ascetic  has  ever  been  informed  by  a vision  or 
locution  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion.  Sudden  conver- 
sions to  the  Catholic  Faith,  like  that  of  Mother  Digby,  Superior- 
General  of  the  nuns  of  the  Sacred  Heart,  are  only  apparent  excep- 
tions. In  these  cases  no  new  truth  is  added  by  revelation  to  the 
previous  knowledge  of  the  recipient.  The  will  is  supernaturally 
moved  to  accept  a truth  or  teaching  authority  already  known  to 
the  intelligence.  Such  miraculous  conversions  are,  in  fact,  but 
the  gift  of  supernatural  faith  bestowed  with  an  extraordinary 
intensity. 

Moreover,  the  various  visions  and  revelations  granted  to  differ- 
ent saints  of  the  incidents  of  Our  Lord’s  life  and  passion  are  often 
in  mutual  contradiction.  Many,  too,  have  been  the  demonstrable 
illusions  even  of  canonised  seers.  St  Vincent  Ferrer  proclaimed 
with  certainty  in  the  fifteenth  century  the  immediate  Parousia. 
St  Elizabeth  of  Schonau  1 and  Bl.  Hermann  Joseph  received 
detailed  revelations  as  to  the  relics  of  the  Cologne  virgins  which 
history  cannot  possibly  accept  as  genuine.  Yet  their  sanctity 
and  therefore  their  sincerity  are  equally  beyond  dispute.  In- 
stances and  arguments  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  I think, 
however,  that  I have  said  sufficient  to  bring  home  the  large  sub- 
jective element  present  in  these  concomitant  phenomena  of 
mysticism.  There  is  indeed  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  sensible 
1 Although  never  canonised,  she  is  generally  accepted  as  a saint. 


218  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

apparition  or  other  similar  manifestation  is  substantially  objective 
(except,  of  course,  from  the  scriptural  appearances  of  Our  Lord’s 
Risen  Body  which  belong  to  a category  apart).  On  the  other 
hand,  we  must  beware  of  the  opposite  extreme,  the  denial  of 
all  objective  validity  and  cause  to  these  sensible  or  quasi-sensible 
phenomena.  Such  a position  would  render  a very  large  portion  of 
the  mystical  experience  even  of  so  great  and  so  eminently  sane  a 
mystic  as  St  Teresa  simple  illusion.  It  would  condemn  the  Church 
for  the  institution  of  such  feasts  as  the  stigmatisation  of  St  Francis 
and  the  transverberation  of  St  Teresa’s  heart.1  It  would  leave 
unexplained  the  indubitable  existence  of  much  verified  prophecy 
(confined,  I believe,  to  private  affairs  2),  of  wise  counsels  and 
warnings,  and  of  spiritual  consolation  and  instruction  given  by 
means  of  visions  and  still  more  of  locutions.  It  would  not  explain 
why  the  strenuous  efforts  of  infidel  psychologists  to  produce  by 
suggestion  phenomena  such  as  stigmatisation  have  only  obtained 
a very  partial  success.  No  one  has  yet  been  able  to  give  a consist- 
ent explanation  of  the  psycho-physical  phenomena  of  any  genuine 
mystic  on  'purely  subjective  lines.  A comparison  of  the  pheno- 
mena of  Gemma’s  life  with  the  laws  of  hypnotic  suggestion  laid 
down  by  Hudson  in  his  Psychic  Phenomena  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  the  former  do  not  conform  to  the  latter.  There  is  no  space 
to  work  out  details  here.  I can  but  take  a few  instances. 
Gemma’s  director  bids  her  pray  for  the  cessation  of  the  external 
stigmata.  She  does  so  ; they  cease.  Suggestion,  plainly  sug- 
gestion. Gemma’s  director  strongly  desires  their  appearance 
before  a certain  doctor,  and  Gemma  knows  of  this  desire.  They 
do  not  appear.  Why  has  the  suggestion  now  failed  ? Gemma 
makes  a novena  for  recovery  from  an  illness  to  Blessed  Margaret 
Mary.  She  is  miraculously  cured.  By  Bl.  Margaret  Mary  ? 
No,  by  Blessed  Gabriel  of  the  Dolours.  Suggestion  would  surely 
have  evoked  the  former,  not  the  latter  healer  (p.  45).  The  devil 
appeal’s  full  of  blasphemies  and  obscenities.  Are  these  the  sub- 
conscious self-suggestions  of  a girl  so  innocent  that  she  did  not 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  foul  speeches  (p.  183).  Again  we 
are  told  by  Hudson  ( Psychic  Phenomena,  p.  130,  and  elsewhere) 
that  the  presence  of  two  contradictory  suggestions  confuses  the 
patient  of  a hypnotic  ecstasy  and  restores  normal  consciousness. 
Yet  we  find  in  Gemma’s  ecstasies  long  colloquies  with  Our  Lord 

lUniveral  Calendar,  17th  September.  Pro  aliquibus  locis,  27th  August. 

2 Cf.  Fr.  Thurston,  The  War  and  the  Prophets,  pp.  112,  118. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  219 

in  which  she  pleads  for  mercy  for  a sinner  (suggestion  of  mercy). 
He  for  a long  while  refuses  mercy  and  demands  the  rigour  of 
justice  (suggestion  of  punishment  without  mercy).  Yet  Gemma 
is  not  confused  nor  awakened  from  her  ecstasy.  We  are  told, 
moreover,  by  Hudson  ( Psychic  Phenomena,  p.  133)  that  the  most 
fundamental  and  strongest  autosuggestion  is  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation  and  self-benefit  in  the  natural  order.  Now  this 
instinct  cannot  attain  its  end  by  a course  of  life  which  is  the 
crucifixion  and  destruction  of  nature,  a fertile  source  of  ill  health, 
and  which  often  leads  to  the  premature  death  of  the  body.  Yet 
such  is  the  course  urged  on  Gemma  by  her  locutions.  How  can 
autosuggestion  thus  act  in  the  teeth  of  the  most  fundamental 
autosuggestion  ? If,  indeed,  on  other  grounds  we  disbelieve  the 
existence  of  the  God  of  theism,  the  Divinity  of  Jesus,  the  survival 
of  the  saints  in  another  world,  the  reality  of  angels  and  of  devils, 
it  is  reasonable  to  ascribe  these  phenomena  despite  all  the  lacunae 
in  the  explanation  to  a purely  natural  cause,  to  the  working 
of  autosuggestion  and  the  suggestion  of  other  men,  trusting  to 
further  investigation  to  fill  those  lacunae  and  to  complete  the  proof. 
If,  however,  on  other  grounds  we  do  believe  in  these  objective 
realities,  we  have  good  reason  to  reject  the  purely  subjective 
explanation,  which  is  so  insufficient,  and  to  accept  the  presence  of 
an  objective  element  and  cause  in  these  phenomena  and  their 
production.  These  psycho-physical  phenomena,  therefore,  are 
neither  purely  subjective  nor  purely  objective.  The  external 
causes,  God,  a saint,  an  angel,  an  evil  spirit  produce  them  only 
through  certain  subjective  and  largely  hypnotic  and  autosugges- 
tive  workings  or  functions  of  the  soul.  After  all,  even  in  the 
experiments  of  the  hypnotic  psychologists  there  is  a large  element 
of  external  suggestion,  the  suggestion  of  the  operator.  Yet  this 
can  produce  at  most  phenomena  analogous  to  those  of  Christian 
mysticism,  but  by  no  means  identical,  indeed  but  a faint  reflex  of 
the  latter.  Does  not  this  point  to  the  need  for  a supernatural  or  at 
least  a preternatural  influx  or  suggestion  to  effect  the  enormously 
more  significant  and  more  wonderful  phenomena  so  often  con- 
comitant upon  mystical  experience  ? 

We  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  relations  between  the  psycho- 
physical phenomena  of  mysticism  and  the  supernatural  operation 
or  cause  are  indefinitely  various  and  complex.  We  cannot  possibly 
treat  all  such  phenomena  as  equally  objective  and  Divine,  or 
equally  subjective  and  self-caused.  Baron  von  Hiigel  in  his 


220  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

admirable  discussion  of  the  psycho-physical  aspect  of  mysticism 
in  The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion,  a discussion  where  the  general 
lines  along  which  the  truth  is  surely  to  be  found  are  clearly  laid 
down  and  proved,  points  out  the  necessity  of  careful  distinction 
between  different  cases.  I believe,  however,  that  for  the  better 
evaluation  of  the  psycho-physical  aspect  of  mysticism  we  may 
group  such  phenomena  on  three  levels  from  the  point  of  view  of 
objective  validity  and  Divine  causality.  There  is  first  the  level 
of  pure  subjectivity.  We  find  here  a class  of  phenomena  without 
any  special  Divine  causation,  due  entirely  to  the  abnormal  psycho- 
physical temperament  of  the  mystics.  These  phenomena  are  often 
purely  pathological,  the  results  of  physical  breakdown.  Their 
sole  spiritual  value  lies  in  their  utilisation  by  the  mystic,  and  even 
this  is  at  times  wanting.  Among  these  we  must  place  the  hysteri- 
cal phenomena  of  St  Catherine  of  Genoa’s  final  illness,  the  yellow- 
ing of  her  skin,  her  arbitrary  and  shifting  moods,  tastes  and  dis- 
tastes, her  hyperaesthesia,  her  hallucinations  and  morbid  quietudes, 
also  such  extraordinary  phenomena  as  were  manifested  in  the 
diseases  of  St  Lidwine  and  in  the  lives  of  the  Cistercian  nun,  St 
Lukardis  (see  Bl.  von  Hiigel,  The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  52-55),  and  of  St  Christina  Mirabilis,  whose  external 
behaviour  amounted  to  sheer  mania.  On  this  level  I would  place 
phenomena  due  to  a purely  human  suggestion,  phenomena  which 
the  observance  of  St  John’s  rules  would  render  impossible.  Such 
would  be  the  wholly  illusory  revelations  of  St  Elizabeth  of  Schonau 
and  Bl.  Hermann  Joseph  about  the  Cologne  virgins,  and  the  astro- 
nomical pseudo-revelations  given  to  St  Frances  of  Rome  which 
were  suggested  by  the  current  beliefs  and  occasioned  by  the 
blameworthy  curiosity  of  her  confessor  (see  Poulain,  Les  Graces 
(TOraison,  chap,  xxi.,  pp.  350-351).  On  the  second  level  are  those 
phenomena  that  are  the  natuial  effect  of  a supernatural  cause. 
Very  many,  probably  the  majority,  of  visions  and  locutions  belong 
to  this  level.  An  instance  of  a vision  on  this  level  is,  I believe, 
the  vision  of  a ceremonial  marriage  with  Jesus  which  often  in- 
augurates the  entrance  of  the  soul  into  the  highest  state  of  mystical 
union.  The  objectively  real  entrance  of  the  soul  into  that  union 
gives  rise  to  the  subjective  vision.  An  instance  of  a revelation  at 
this  level  would  be  St  Vincent  Ferrer’s  illusion  of  the  imminent 
end  of  the  world.  This  was  probably  his  subjective  mistransla- 
tion of  a true  intuition  that  the  mediaeval  and  Christian  world 
order  was  in  pr’ocess  of  rapid  dissolution,  and  that  the  pagan 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  221 

Renaissance  and  semi -pagan  Reformation  were  close  at  hand  to  in- 
augurate a new  era  of  naturalism.  Among  the  phenomena  of  this 
second  level  must  also  be  placed  the  psycho-physical  effects  of 
mystical  prayer — for  example,  the  external  psycho-physical  pheno- 
mena of  ecstasy,  including  levitation  and  the  stigmata.  For  of 
such  phenomena  it  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  they  are  the  natural 
effects  of  supernatural  causes.  Granted  a certain  degree  and 
quality  of  spiritual  will-union  and  absoiption  in  God,  of  concentra- 
tion on  His  Presence,  these  psycho-physical  phenomena  follow  by 
the  natural  operation  of  psycho -physical  laws.  The  passion  stig- 
mata of  St  Francis,  of  Gemma  Galgani  and  of  other  ecstatics  were 
thus  the  natural  effect  on  the  body  of  a powerful  supernatural 
influx  of  loving  compassion  into  the  soul.  When  in  obedience  to 
her  director  Gemma  resisted  this  influx  by  a violent  withdrawal 
of  her  contemplation,  the  stigmata  did  not  pass  beyond  the  pre- 
liminary stage  of  premonitory  symptoms  {Life  of  Gemma,  p.  144). 
If  many  of  these  phenomena  cannot  be  reproduced  by  natural 
suggestion,  it  is  because  the  force  of  natural  suggestion  is  too  weak. 
A supernatural  suggestion  or  impulse  of  Divine  origin  is  required 
to  make  such  an  impression  on  the  body.  Nevertheless  there  are 
many  of  these  phenomena  which  can  be  reproduced  wholly  or 
partially  by  the  natural  suggestion  of  other  human  souls  or  by 
autosuggestion. 

St  John  himself  admits  in  principle  this  explanation  of  second 
level  phenomena  in  The  Living  Flam,e  of  Love  in  a passage  of  great 
impoitance.  This  passage,  hitherto  incompletely  presented,  I 
translate  immediately  from  the  Spanish  text  of  the  Edicion  Critica. 
“If  at  any  time,”  he  says,  “God  permits  any  external  effect  of 
a spiritual  wound  of  love  to  appear  in  the  bodily  senses,  the  wound 
is  manifested  externally  after  the  fashion  of  the  interior  wounding. 
This  happened,  for  example,  when  the  Seraph  smote  St  Francis. 
When  his  soul  was  wounded  by  love  with  the  five  wounds,  after 
that  very  fashion  was  their  effect  communicated  to  the  body,  for 
the  wounds  were  imprinted  also  in  the  body,  which  itself  was 
wounded,  even  as  they  had  been  imprinted  on  the  soul  when 
wounded  by  love.  It  is  indeed  God’s  usual  way  ” (does  not  modern 
psychology  justify  us  in  regarding  it  as  a law  of  the  supernatural 
order,  or  rather  as  a law  that  belongs  to  and  proceeds  from  the 
harmony  of  the  two  orders  of  grace  and  nature  ?)  “not  to  bestow 
any  favour  on  the  body  that  he  has  not  primarily  and  principally 
wrought  in  the  soul  ” {Living  Flame,  st.  2). 


222  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

This  principle  is  exemplified  abundantly  in  the  history  of 
miraculous  cures.  Our  Saviour  healed  the  sick  soul  of  the  paralytic 
as  a precedent  condition  to  his  bodily  cure.1  Faith  was  miracu- 
lously infused  into  Gabriel  Gargam  when  receiving  communion  at 
Lourdes,  and  only  afterwards  was  his  physical  cure  effected. 
The  vast  majority  of  these  cures  should  therefore  be  regarded  as 
belonging  to  this  second  level  of  psycho-physical  phenomena. 
They  are  natural  effects  of  a supernatural  cause,  the  natural  effects 
on  the  body  of  a psychosis  itself  produced  by  a supernatural 
operation.  Not  the  least  part  of  St  John’s  greatness  as  a doctor 
of  mystical  theology  is  his  clear  distinction  between  these  external 
and  physical  embodiments  and  effects  of  Divine  grace  by  which 
the  multitude  set  such  store  and  in  which  they  rest  content, 
but  whose  value  has  been  so  tremendously  discounted  by  the 
observations  of  modem  psychology,  and  the  inner  spiritual  sub- 
stance which  is  beyond  the  reach  of  a psychological  science  which 
confines  itself  to  the  study  of  the  external  psycho -physical  pheno- 
mena. The  concomitant  phenomena  of  ecstasy  are  treated  in 
this  way  by  St  John.  He  sees  in  the  external  physiological 
phenomena  nothing  but  the  natural  effects  of  physical  weakness, 
and  of  the  natural  incapacity  of  the  soul’s  lower  functions  to  endure 
the  special  operation  of  God  in  the  inmost  centre.  “ As  the  sensual 
part  of  the  soul  is  weak,  without  any  capacity  for  the  strong  things 
of  the  spirit,  they  who  are  in  the  state  of  proficients  ” ( i.e . who 
have  reached  a certain  state  of  mystical  experience),  “ by  reason  of 
the  spiritual  communications  made  to  the  sensual  part,  are  subject 
therein  to  great  infirmities  and  sufferings,  and  physical  derange- 
ments, and  consequently  weariness  of  mind,  as  it  is  written  : 
‘the  corruptible  body  . . . presseth  down  the  mind.’  . . . Here 
is  the  source  of  ecstasies,  raptures  and  dislocation  of  the  bones 
which  always  happen  whenever  these  communications  are  not 
purely  spiritual ; that  is,  granted  to  the  spirit  alone  as  in  the  case  of 
the  perfect.  In  them  these  raptures  and  physical  sufferings  cease, 
for  they  enjoy  liberty  of  spirit  with  unclouded  and  unsuspended 
senses  ” ( Dark  Night,  ii.  l).  In  other  words,  the  soul  is  then  able  to 
energise  freely  Godward  in  its  centre  and  its  radical  functions,  un- 
hindered by  the  peripheral  body-informing  and  sense-dependent 

1 There  are  perhaps  exceptions  where  for  a particular  purpose  a miracle  was 
wrought  on  an  unbeliever — e.g.  the  restoration  of  Malchus’  ear.  But  after  all 
we  do  not  know  that  Malchus’  soul  did  not  then  receive  a gift  of  conversion  and 
faith.  Moreover,.  St  Luke  implies  that  the  ear  had  not  been  wholly  severed. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  223 

functions  through  which  the  soul  chiefly  energises  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  natural  life.  It  is  in  the  passage  from  one  energising  to 
the  other,  from  a soul  life  mainly  peripheral  to  a soul  life  mainly 
interior  and  central,  that  the  sensible  functions  are  thrown  out 
of  gear  by  the  introversion  of  the  soul,  or  more  truly  by  the  result 
of  that  introversion  its  closer  relationship  to  God  and  His  more 
potent  and  more  manifest  activity  in  its  centre.  We  must, 
however,  remember  that  ecstasy,  in  the  usual  acceptance  of  the 
term  which  we  find  in  most  mystical  writings,  contains  always 
two  and  often  three  distinct  elements,  which  elements  differ 
enormously  in  worth  and  in  objective  reference.  There  is  the 
mystical  union  itself,  in  the  degree  termed  ecstasy.  This  is,  of 
course,  purely  and  directly  the  supernatural  work  of  God.  Then 
there  are  the  physiological  accompaniments,  such  as  anaesthesia 
and  rigidity.  These  are  natural  effects  of  the  extraordinary 
spiritual  energising,  the  concentration  of  the  entire  soul  in  and  on 
God.  These  effects  are  identical  with  those  consequent  on 
hysterical  and  hypnotic  alienations  (of.  Padre  Germano,  Life  of 
Gemma  Galgani,  English  translation,  pp.  395,  396  and  413).  Then 
there  are  often  present  in  mystical  prayer,  especially  in  ecstasy, 
visions  of  sensible  images,  locutions  of  audible  words.  These  are 
no  essential  part  of  the  mystical  union,  and  are  caused  in  part  by 
Divine  action,  in  part  by  the  autosuggestion  of  the  subconscious 
self.  The  respective  share  of  each  factor  can  only  be  known,  if  at 
all,  from  the  nature  and  value  of  the  content  of  the  visions  or 
locutions.  Hysterical  ecstatics  also  see  visions,  composed  and 
caused  solely  and  entirely  by  their  own  autosuggestion,  and  there- 
fore never  rising  above  the  miserable  level  of  their  own  mentality. 
It  is  a pity  that  the  word  ecstasy  is  used  indiscriminately  of  these 
three  elements  separately,  and  of  all  together.  The  ecstasy  St 
John  regards  as  a passing  weakness  is  the  second  element.  The 
first  merges  in  a higher  degree  of  union.  The  third  is  not  peculiar 
to  the  ecstatic  degree  of  mystical  prayer,  and  to  it  is  applicable  all 
said  in  The  Ascent  of  particular  visions  and  revelations.  Of  these 
three  elements  the  first  alone  is  to  be  sought  and  accepted  for  its 
own  sake  by  the  mystic,  and  that  and  that  alone  is  purely  super- 
natural. 

There  is,  however,  a third  level  at  which  the  content,  that  is 
to  say,  the  significance  of  the  psycho-physical  phenomenon,  of  the 
vision  or  locution  is  such  as  to  prove  or  suggest  that  even  the 
psycho-physical  form  is  not  wholly  subjective,  but  has  been 


224  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

externally  caused  by  God  or  by  the  Sacred  Humanity,  by  Our 
Lady,  or  by  some  angel  or  saint,  although  the  materials  out  of  which 
it  is  constructed  are  still  subjective  and  are  drawn  from  the 
storehouse  of  subconsciousness.  For  instance,  the  history  of 
the  apparitions  at  Lourdes  fully  warrants  us  in  ascribing  even  the 
external  vision  of  Bernadette  in  its  general  features  to  a direct 
communication  by  Our  Blessed  Lady,  though  given  through  the 
mode  of  images  taken  from  Bernadette’s  subconsciousness. 
Another  instance  of  this  level  would  be  the  revelation  of  the 
Sacred  Heart  to  Bl.  Margaret  Mary.1  I should  also  be  inclined 
to  place  on  this  level  the  apparitions  of  Blessed  Gabriel  to  Gemma 
Galgani  mentioned  above.  Gemma  was,  I think,  truly  en  rapport 
with  the  saint,  though  he  could  only  make  his  presence  known 
through  the  subjective  and  subconscious  workings  of  her  soul 
which  formed  for  him,  as  it  were,  a body  and  a voice.  If  no  psycho- 
physical phenomena  belong  to  this  class  and  level,  many  of  the 
greatest  mystics  and  saints  were  victims  of  unmerited  delusion, 
even  granted  the  objective  validity  of  their  mystical  union.  For 
the  entire  or  at  least  the  greatest  worth  of  their  visions  has  often 
consisted  precisely  in  their  objective  validity  on  the  psycho-physical 
and  phenomenal  plane,  not  merely  as  being  effects  or  concomi- 
tants of  the  mystical  union.  If,  for  instance,  Bernadette  had  not 
been  in  especial  communication  with  Our  Lady  and  had  not  re- 
ceived an  authentic  message  from  her,  she  would  have  been  under 
a cruel  delusion,  even  if  God  were  really  placing  her  soul  in  mystical 
union  with  Himself.  It  is  in  his  denial  of  the  existence  of  this 
third  level  that  we  must  part  company  with  Baron  von  Huge], 
who  is  otherwise  so  valuable  and  reliable  a guide  in  these  still 
very  obscure  matters.  On  all  levels,  however,  there  is  a sub- 
jective element  present  in  these  psycho-physical  phenomena. 
Otherwise  we  should  attain  in  this  life  that  open  vision  of  spiritual 
and  divine  realities  as  they  are  in  themselves  which  has  already 
been  shown  to  be  impossible.  At  the  first  level  this  element  is 
everything  ; even  at  the  third  it  plays  an  important  part.  More- 
over, the  three  levels  cannot  be  sharply  distinguished.  Each  passes 
over  imperceptibly  into  the  other.  They  are  indeed  simply  three 
categoi’ies  under  which  it  is  possible  and  convenient  to  group 
roughly  the  multitude  of  indefinitely  varied  and  complex  pheno- 
mena under  discussion,  phenomena  wherein  the  subjective,  the 

1 1 mean  the  substance  of  that  revelation.  I should  not  care  to  commit  myself 
to  belief  in  every  promise  in  detail. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  225 

naturally  objective  and  the  supematurally  objective  elements  are 
almost  inextricably  blended.  In  individual  cases  the  presence 
of  a trans-subjective  element  must  be  affirmed  or  denied,  and  its 
degree  and  value  must  be  estimated  (often  this  can  never  be  done 
with  any  certainty  or  accuracy)  solely  by  the  ethical  and  spiritual 
content  and  significance  of  the  psycho-physical  phenomenon  in 
question. 

The  subjective  element  of  these  psycho-physical  phenomena  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  mystic,  but  is  found  also  in  the  hysterical 
patient,  in  the  hypnotic  subject  and  in  the  lunatic.  We  have  seen 
already  how  hysterical  or  hypnotic  in  character  are  the  first  level 
phenomena.  There  is  often,  indeed,  no  difference  whatever  in  the 
phenomenal  presentation  between  the  visions  of  the  hysterical  or 
hypnotised  subject  and  those  of  the  saint,  and  there  must  always 
be  an  element  common  to  both.  The  existence  and  necessity  of 
this  common  element  has  indeed  been  clearly  expressed  by  Myers 
in  a canon  which  should  be  carefully  borne  in  mind  in  any  dis- 
cussion of  this  psycho-physical  aspect  of  mysticism.  “ It  may  be 
expected,”  he  lays  it  down,  “ that  supernormal  vital  phenomena 
will  manifest  themselves  as  far  as  possible  through  the  same 
channels  as  abnormal  or  morbid  vital  phenomena,  when  the  same 
centres  or  the  same  synergies  are  involved  ” ( Human  Person- 
ality, Abridged  Edition,  p.  255).  This  canon  he  proceeds  to  develop 
in  one  of  the  most  valuable  passages  of  his  book.1  He  shows  that 
since  the  supernormal  (I  should  correct,  the  supernatural)  works 
through  the  same  depths  or  functions  of  the  soul  which  are  affected 
by  abnormal  and  morbid  psychoses  such  as  hysteria,  there  must 
be  a phenomenal  element  common  to  both  classes  of  experience. 
The  difference  lies  in  the  spiritual  significance  or  value,  or,  as  St 
John  would  term  it,  the  substance — a criterion  which  is  obviously 
external  to  the  sensible  phenomenon,  and  which  cannot  be  grasped 
or  applied  by  the  soul  that  rests  in  that  phenomenon  in  and  for 
itself.  These  phenomena  therefore  qua  external  sensible  pheno- 
mena are  valueless.2  Any  value  they  may  possess  is  due  to  an 
underlying  spiritual  communication  made  by  God  or  by  an  angel 
or  saint  through  their  means.  To  rest  in  the  sensible  appearance 

1 1 speak  of  its  substantial  meaning.  With  its  details  I am  far  from  agree- 
ment. In  my  summary  I have  translated  his  meaning  into  the  terminology 
adopted  in  this  hook. 

2 Except  in  the  comparatively  rare  cases  of  third  level  phenomena.  Even 
then  the  worth  of  the  external  phenomenon  can  only  be  determined  by  the 
consideration  of  its  spiritual  significance  and  power. 

P 


226  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

as  such,  in  the  glowing  colours,  sweet  odours  or  musical  notes,  the 
element  shared  by  the  visions  of  the  opium  smoker,  the  hypnotic 
subject,  the  spiritistic  medium  and  the  madman,  and  to  accept 
that  as  intrinsically  valuable  and  Divine,  an  adequate  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  would  obviously  be  the  ruin  of  true  spirituality,  of 
the  life  that  is  essentially  interior.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must,  as 
has  been  pointed  out  above,  avoid  the  opposite  error  of  regarding 
such  phenomena  as  always  wholly  subjective,  even  in  their  cause, 
however  valuable  be  the  spiritual  significance  or  substance  con- 
veyed. Such  an  error  is  indeed  identical  in  principle  with  its 
opposite  extreme.  In  similar  fashion  it  judges  the  inner  sub- 
stance by  the  outward  form,  making  the  external  phenomenon 
the  standard  of  value  and  resting  the  understanding  in  that.  It  is 
now  evident  how  utterly  opposed  true  mysticism  is  to  the  counter- 
feit mysticism  which  seeks  and  revels  in  extraordinary  sensible 
phenomena,  and  which  is  indeed,  as  Baron  von  Hiigel  points  out, 
the  very  essence  of  modem  spiritism  or  occultism. 

In  his  discussion  of  the  active  night  St  John  proceeds  to  reject 
all  images  formed  naturally  by  our  understanding,  as  is  done  in 
the  exercise  of  discursive  meditation.  These,  though  useful  as  a 
stage  on  the  way,  must  finally  be  rejected,  for  if  we  rest  in  them  we 
cannot  attain  to  the  Divine  Being  wholly  inexpressible  by  images 
derived  ultimately  from  sense  impressions.  The  abandonment  of 
this  discui'sive  meditation  by  means  of  sensible  images  is  decided 
by  the  gift  of  a higher  contemplation,  passively  received.  Its 
discussion,  therefore,  belongs  to  the  passive  night  of  sense — and 
only  to  the  active  night  in  so  far  as  the  soul  is  able  to  follow  or 
resist  the  Divine  attraction  to  rise  higher,  to  reject  or  accept  the 
Divine  gift. 

St  John  proceeds  to  reject  imaginary  visions  produced  super- 
naturally,  and  that  on  the  same  principle  on  which  he  rejected  the 
more  external  and  therefore  lower  physical  phenomena.  These 
“ imaginary  ” visions  do  not  differ  in  principle  from  sensible  visions 
and  have  therefore  already  been  discussed  together  with  them. 
Since,  indeed,  the  so-called  sensible  visions  have  been  shown  to  be 
subjective  in  their  mode,  if  not  in  their  cause,  the  reader  may  ask 
what  difference  there  is  between  them  and  these  “ imaginary  ” 
visions.  The  difference  is  merely  this,  that  whereas  the  former 
appear  to  possess  objective  existence  in  the  physical  world,  to  be 
apprehended  by  the  senses,  the  latter  do  not.  Yet  they  also  seem 
to  be  spiritually  trans-subjective,  the  perception  by  the  imagina- 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  227 

tion  1 of  a reality  and  operation  external  to  the  soul.  But  the 
difference  between  the  two  classes  of  phenomena  lies  only  in  this 
appearance.  The  presence  of  trans-subjective  validity  may  be 
equal  or  greater  in  the  “ sensible  ” visions  and  locutions,  though 
normally  this  is  not  the  case,  since  God  prefers  the  more  interior 
mode  of  communication. 

Here  St  John  sets  himself  to  resolve  a difficulty — namely,  the 
Divine  purpose  in  sending  distinct  apprehensions  which  must  be 
rejected.  He  answers  the  objection  by  means  of  the  principle 
used  elsewhere  to  determine  the  right  use  of  image  worship  by 
the  mystic.  Like  images,  these  sensible  or  imaginary  apprehen- 
sions are  intended  to  lead  the  soul  beyond  them,  being  accommo- 
dations to  the  nature  of  an  embodied  spirit,  excitants  to  a de- 
votion which  must  transcend  its  stimulus.  Their  true  substance 
is  an  obscure  and  loving  apprehension  of  the  incomprehensible 
Deity  underlying  the  clear  forms  presented  to  the  imagination. 
This  apprehension  and  love  union  is  given  to  the  soul  in  the  very 
moment  when  the  “ imaginary  vision  ” enters  the  imagination. 
If  the  soul  binds  itself  within  the  limits  of  the  external  appearance, 
by  attachment  to  that  appearance  for  its  own  sake,  this  substance 
is  lost  at  least  in  part,  for  the  soul  cannot  grasp  the  Unlimited 
Godhead,  by  loving  faith,  if  and  in  so  far  as  it  clings  to  and  rests 
in  the  essentially  limited  image.  In  view  of  the  soul’s  weakness 
the  external  vision  is  sent  to  arouse  it  to  grasp  the  inward  Divine 
Substance  infused  through  love.  The  soul,  aroused  by  the  vision, 
opens  to  God  its  inmost  will  and  selfhood  in  the  act  of  supernatural 
love  and  apprehensive  faith  thereby  excited.  This  enables  it  to 
receive  more  immediately  and  more  fully  the  Divine  Being  Whom 
it  finds  and  possesses  in  proportion  to  its  freedom  from  limiting 
attachment  to  creatures.  For  this  purpose  was  the  vision  sent, 
not  to  be  the  cause  of  a new  self -limitation  of  the  soul  by  attach- 
ment to  its  created  and  limited  form.2  The  function  of  these 
supernatural  visions  is  thus  analogous  to  that  of  the  mysteries  of 
the  Incarnation  discussed  already.  It  is,  however,  only  analogous, 
for  these  images  and  apprehensions  have  not  been  brought  like 
Our  Lord  and  the  sacraments  into  an  essential  relationship  of 

1 1 mean,  of  course,  the  image-retaining  and  image-forming  function  of  the 
soul,  not  imagination  in  the  vulgar  sense, 

2 St  John  not  only  explains  this  at  length  in  this  part  of  his  book,  but  again 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Book  III.  he  repeats  the  same  doctrine  with  some  further 
amplification. 


228  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

peculiar  intimacy  with  the  Divine  Being.  They  are  bare  symbols 
and  no  more.1  Hence  to  pass  through  them  is  to  pass  beyond 
them  and  to  forget  them,  not  to  pass  deeper  into  them,  as  is  the 
case  with  the  Incarnation  and  its  extensions.  It  is  at  this  point 
that  St  John  discusses  the  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Bible. 
Of  his  profound  treatment  of  this  very  difficult  matter  I will 
speak  elsewhere.2  He  then  proceeds  to  the  purely  intellectual 
or  spiritual  apprehensions  of  the  soul.  These  he  subdivides  into 
several  classes.  As  I know  from  bitter  experience,  it  is  by  no  means 
easy  for  the  reader  who  comes  to  The  Ascent  for  the  first  time  to 
form  a distinct  notion  of  the  differences  between  these.  More- 
over, they  are  not  all  treated  alike.  Some  are  integral  portions 
of  the  mystical  experience  itself,  and  therefore  in  them  the  soul 
may  rest.  Others,  distinct  concepts  of  various  kinds,  do  not 
belong  to  the  experience,  and  these,  like  all  the  lower  and  less  real 
because  wholly  or  partially  sensible  apprehensions  already  dis- 
cussed, are  to  be  rejected.  St  John  speaks  first  of  intellectual 
visions  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of 
this  second  book.  These  are  of  two  kinds.  The  former  are 
visions  of  corporeal  things  made  visible  by  a purely  intellectual 
light  supernaturally  infused.  As  an  example  of  these  St  John 
mentions  the  Apocalyptic  vision  of  the  new  Jerusalem.  These 
visions,  however,  obviously  involve  a sensible  element,  which 
element  is  surely  constructed  out  of  materials  already  present  in 
the  subconsciousness,  as  are  the  imaginary  and  sensible  visions. 
They  may  therefore  be  reduced  to  the  same  category  as  the  two 
former.  The  other  kind  consists  of  clear  visions  of  spiritual  sub- 
stances— “ namely,  the  Divine  Essence,  angels  and  souls  ” which 
require  “ a light  that  is  termed  the  lumen  glorice .”  In  other 
words,  St  John  is  speaking  of  the  beatific  vision  of  heaven.  He 
adopts  the  view  that  an  open  vision  of  the  Divine  Essence,  similar 
in  principle  to  the  beatific  vision,  has  been,  though  very  rarely, 
granted  to  saints  in  this  life,  and  he  instances  St  Paul’s  vision  of 
the  third  heaven.  It  is,  however,  more  than  doubtful  whether 
such  a vision  has  been  or  could  be  given  to  a soul  still  embodied 
in  this  mortal  flesh.  The  passage  is  rather  an  interesting  specula- 
tion than  a solid  contribution  to  mystical  theology.  Indeed  in 
the  older  text  of  St  John  this  passage  has  been  so  severely  Bowdler- 

1 The  third  level  phenomena,  however,  approach  the  Incarnational  mysteries, 
of  which,  indeed,  they  are,  so  to  speak,  the  outermost  fringe. 

2 See  Chapter  XIII.,  “The  Mystical  Interpretaticn  of  Scripture.” 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  229 

ised  as  to  leave  the  saint’s  meaning  somewhat  obscure.  Of  the 
first  importance,  on  the  contrary,  are  the  words  which  immediately 
follow.  “ Though  in  the  ordinary  course,”  St  John  writes,  “ these 
visions  cannot  be  clearly  and  nakedly  seen  with  the  understanding 
in  this  life,  they  may  nevertheless  be  felt  in  the  very  substance 
of  the  soul  through  the  instrumentality  of  a loving  knowledge 
together  with  most  sweet  touches  and  unions.  . . . These  are  the 
end  I have  in  view  in  writing,  the  divine  embrace  and  union  of 
the  soul  with  the  divine  Substance.  ...  In  this  loving  and 
obscure  knowledge  God  unites  Himself  with  the  soul  eminently 
and  divinely.  For  this  loving  obscure  knowledge,  which  is  faith, 
serves  in  a manner  in  this  life  as  means  of  the  divine  union,  as  the 
light  of  glory  hereafter  serves  for  the  clear  vision  of  God.”  This 
passage  is,  as  I have  already  pointed  out,  indubitable  evidence 
of  what  St  John  understood  by  faith — namely,  an  intuition  of  the 
Godhead  present  in  the  centre  of  the  soul,  but  veiled  from  all  clear 
conception,  and  therefore  the  substance  of  the  beatific  vision  hoped 
for  hereafter.  St  John,  returning  to  the  intellectual  visions  of 
corporeal  objects,  points  out  that  from  the  very  fact  that  their 
subject-matter  is  created  they  are  wholly  inadequate  as  appre- 
hensions of  the  Godhead,  and  therefore  to  be  rejected.  In  the 
twenty-sixth  chapter  St  John  speaks  of  supernatural  “ knowledge 
of  pure  truths,”  which,  he  says,  “ consists  in  seeing  with  the  under- 
standing the  truths  of  God,  or  of  things  or  concerning  things  which 
are,  have  been,  or  will  be.”  Of  this  knowledge  there  are  two  kinds. 
One  of  these  is  a knowledge  of  the  Divine  Being  through  one  or 
more  of  His  attributes,  whose  meaning  is  realised  with  a depth  and 
fulness  impossible  to  our  natural  understanding.  For  instance, 
the  soul  has  a sudden  and  powerful  realisation  of  God  as  supreme 
love  or  justice.  Such  knowledge  is  no  distinct  concept,  but  an 
obscure  though  very  vivid  intuition  infused  into  the  soul.  It  is 
not  a knowledge  of  the  Divine  Being  in  Himself,  but  in  a special 
relationship  to  creation,1  and  is  therefore  a veiled  and  indirect 
apprehension  of  the  Godhead.  Moreover,  the  attributes  being 
“unclosed”  (see  chap,  iv.)  are  not  themselves  distinct  con- 
cepts, but  incomprehensible  in  their  Divine  infinity.  Therefore 
these  apprehensions  pertain  to  the  mystical  faith-intuition  of 
which  they  are  a special,  transient  and  inferior  form.2  St  John 

1 More  accurately  of  creation  as  in  a special  relationship  to  Him. 

2 For  a series  of  these  special  apprehensions  of  the  Divine  Attributes  see  The 
Visions  of  Blessed  Angela  of  Foligno  and  the  diary  of  Lucie  Christine. 


230  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

speaks  of  them  here  as  “ divine  touches.”  Being  part  of  the 
mystical  intuition-union,  they  are,  of  course,  to  be  received,  not 
rejected.  The  second  kind  of  knowledge  of  pure  truths  is  a 
knowledge  of  created  beings.  This  class  includes  a knowledge  of 
natural  truths  supernaturally  infused,  as  God  might  infuse  a 
knowledge  of  secular  science  or  philosophy  into  a saint  that  he 
might  pass  an  important  examination.  St  John  instances  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon.  In  this  class  are  also  comprised  such  graces 
as  prophecy  and  the  discerning  of  spirits,  knowledge  of  distant 
events,  or  of  the  state  of  particular  souls.  All  such  graces  are 
obviously  granted  for  some  end  external  to  the  soul’s  union  with 
God  through  sanctifying  grace.  They  are  graces  termed  in 
theology  gratis  datce.  Such  were  the  graces  which  the  Corinthian 
converts  overvalued,  and  to  which  St  Paul  bade  them  prefer 
charity,  the  true  bond  of  union  between  the  soul  and  God.  St 
John  speaks  strongly  on  the  great  danger  of  delusion  in  these 
matters.  “ Let  the  director,”  he  says,  “ guide  his  penitent  quickly 
past  this,  not  making  a mountain  out  of  a molehill,  because  it  is  of 
no  help  to  him  on  the  road  to  the  divine  union.”  Yet  such  occult 
phenomena  are  the  utmost  rewards  aspired  to  by  modern  spirit- 
ists, and  the  most  desirable  fruits  of  sanctity  in  the  eyes  of  the 
multitude.  Truly  the  active  night  of  detachment  is  here  carried 
to  its  furthest  point.  This  supreme  detachment  is,  however, 
perfectly  logical,  and  indeed  a striking  manifestation  of  that 
supernatural  common -sense  which  is  known  as  the  infused  virtue 
of  prudence,  and  which  alone  can  guide  the  soul  in  safety  along 
these  Alpine  precipices  of  the  spiritual  life  where  a false  step  may 
lightly  precipitate  it  into  the  abyss. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  should  remember  that,  when  the  sub- 
stance of  the  mystical  union  has  been  attained  and  firmly  grasped, 
these  more  exterior  phenomena — even  the  corporeal-i maginary 
visions — lose  their  danger.  When  the  Resurrection  synthesis 
begins  first  to  manifest  itself,  as  it  does  in  the  higher  degrees  of 
union,  the  limits  of  such  phenomena  cease  to  detain  the  soul, 
which  passes  in  and  through  them  to  the  unlimited  Godhead.  St 
Teresa’s  visions  of  jewels  and  music,  of  landscapes  and  of  her 
friends  in  a strange  beauty,  may  perhaps  be  accepted  as  instances 
of  this,  unless  indeed  we  are  to  regard  her  practice  as  opposed  to 
the  teaching  of  St  John,  which  should  not  lightly  be  presumed. 
I prefer  to  believe  that  this  great  mystic  had  entered  in  part  into 
the  final  synthesis  when  these  created,  indeed  sensible,  goods  no 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  231 

longer  limit  the  soul,  but  arouse  it  on  the  contrary  to  a new  fruition 
of  the  Unlimited  Goodness  with  Which  it  is  in  such  close  union. 

Chapter  twenty-seven  is  devoted  to  revelations — which  are 
again  subdivided  into  two  kinds.  The  former  is  the  Judaeo- 
Christian  revelation,  finally  closed  at  the  end  of  the  Apostolic  era. 
No  new  addition  to  that  revelation  is  to  be  expected,  and  no 
revelation  of  this  kind  can  therefore  be  ever  claimed  by  the 
Catholic  mystic.  Outside  the  Church,  however,  there  have  been 
many  who,  like  Swedenborg,  have  claimed  special  revelations 
against  or  beside  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  All  such  stand 
self-condemned.*  It  may  perhaps  be  thought  that  Catholics  are 
in  no  danger  of  being  led  astray  by  them.  In  our  time,  however, 
there  is  so  much  false  mysticism,  or  rather,  perhaps,  falsely  in- 
terpreted mysticism,  that  even  a Catholic  mystic  may  be  led  to 
accept  alleged  revelations  that  are  out  of  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Church.  Even  a Catholic  mystical  writer  so  funda- 
mentally sound  as  Coventry  Patmore  toyed  with  strange  Gnostic 
fancies  as  to  sex  principles,  and  was  greatly  influenced  by  Sweden- 
borg.1 The  second  class  of  revelations  are  “ Private  revelations.” 
The  subject-matter  of  these  revelations  often  consists  of  private 
matters  concerning  the  recipient  or  his  environment.  Sometimes 
they  are  special  illuminations  concerning  some  point  of  the  public 
revelation,  a supernatural  insight  or  vivid  apprehension  of  some 
mystery  of  faith.  These  are,  as  St  John  points  out,  nob  revela- 
tions in  the  strict  sense,  since  they  contain  nothing  not  already 
known  in  virtue  of  the  public  revelation.  To  this  class  belong 
the  intellectual  visions  2 of  the  Blessed  Trinity  such  as  were  granted 
to  St  Ignatius  and  to  St  Teresa,  and  which  normally  accompany 
the  transforming  union.  Often,  however,  these  private  revelations, 
or  illuminations  of  the  mysteries  of  the  public  revelation,  contain 
additional  details  concerning  the  mystery  thus  revealed — for 
example,  the  Passion  visions  of  St  Bridget  and  Anne  Catherine 
Emmerich — or  command  special  devotions,  as  did  the  well-known 
revelation  made  by  Our  Saviour  to  Blessed  Margaret  Mary  con- 
cerning the  Sacred  Heart.  Of  these  private  revelations  some  are 
purely  intellectual,  especially  those  which  are  illuminations  of 


1 See  Miss  Spurgeon,  Mysticism  in  English  Literature,  p.  49  ; also  Mr  Meynell’s 
Life  of  Francis  Thompson. 

2 Hence  St  Teresa’s  "intellectual  visions”  are  not  synonymous  with  those 
so  called  by  St  John,  which  are,  as  we  saw  above,  either  (1)  the  beatific  vision 
anticipated  or  (2)  visions  of  absent  corporeal  objects. 


232  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

revealed  dogma,  and  in  particular  the  intellectual  visions  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity  which  accompany  the  supreme  mystical  union. 
These  are,  of  course,  the  highest  and  the  most  Divine,  because  the 
least  limited.  These  revelations,  however,  are  for  the  most  part, 
as  St  John  himself  says,  “ expressed  by  words,  figures  and  simili- 
tudes.” That  is  to  say,  they  are  expressed  through  the  media  of 
sense-derived  images.  They  are  therefore  in  great  part  reducible 
to  the  kinds  of  extraordinaiy  apprehension  already  discussed. 
This  is  an  instance  of  that  cross  division  that  is  inevitable  in 
mystical  theology  whose  subject-matter  is  not  an  orderly  series  of 
distinct  facts,  but  one  and  the  same  obscure  reality  seen  from 
various  aspects  which  blend  one  into  another.  The  elaborate 
divisions  and  subdivisions  of  The  Ascent  give  the  reader  a false  ex- 
pectation of  a real  distinction  between  all  these,  whereas  they  are 
often  but  different  ways  of  regarding  the  same  experience.  Here 
St  John  is  discussing  the  same  psycho-physical  phenomena  as 
he  has  already  dealt  with,  but  from  a more  interior  point  of  view. 
He  is  considering  no  longer  the  external  form  but  the  intellectual 
knowledge  conveyed,  the  revelation  of  truth  to  the  understanding.1 
This  knowledge  or  revelation  as  expressible  in  intellectual  concepts 
is  more  spiritual,  and  therefore  more  real  and  more  valuable,  than 
the  material  images,  but  since  and  in  so  far  as  it  is  distinct,  and 
comprehensible  by  clear  ideas  of  the  intellect,  it  is  infinitely  less 
than  the  spiritual  substance,  the  Divine  Self-communication  which 
underlies  both  alike.  It  is  therefore  to  be  rejected.  Especially 
to  be  rejected  is  new  knowledge,  additional  to  the  dogmas  of 
faith — for  instance,  new  details  revealed  concerning  these  dogmas. 
Indeed  even  the  dogmas  of  faith  themselves,  concerning  which  the 
soul  receives  an  especial  illumination,  are  not  to  be  believed  in 
virtue  of  that  illumination,  but  solely  in  virtue  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Church.2  For  the  ground  of  supernatural  faith  can  only  be 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  not  the  private  illumination,  however 
self-evident  it  may  seem.  St  John’s  caution  is  fully  justified  by 
the  indubitable  fact  that  the  distinct  details  concerning  mysteries 
of  faith  revealed  to  certain  mystics  are  simply  imaginative  pictur- 
ings  of  that  mystery.  Nevertheless  it  is  undeniable  that  the 
Church  and  her  theologians  have  valued  and  admitted  in  practice 
private  revelations.  St  John’s  rejection  may  therefore  seem 

1 Moreover,  the  external  form  is  at  times  wanting  and  the  revelation  is  purely 
intellectual  (see  above). 

2 Ascent,  chaps,  xxvii.,  xxix. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  233 

opposed  to  this  practice.  The  rejection,  however,  which  St  John 
demands  is  in  order  to  the  mystical  union.  From  a more  exterior 
point  of  view,  in  order  to  help  other  souls,  for  the  better  accom- 
plishment of  the  external  work  of  the  recipient  or  for  the  general 
good  of  the  Church,  such  revelations  ought  sometimes  to  be  re- 
ceived and  used,  as,  for  instance,  the  revelation  requiring  devotion 
to  the  Sacred  Heart.  Nevertheless  the  internal  rejection  or  de- 
tachment must  be  present  if  the  soul  is  to  pass  onward  to  the 
mystical  union.  We  must  also  bear  in  mind  that  the  Church 
never  has  accepted,  nor  can  accept,  any  private  revelation  as 
authentic.  She  can  approve  of  such  revelations  as  useful,  pious 
and  as  probably  from  God,  but  she  cannot  propose  them  to  our 
belief  as  His  certain  revelation.  To  do  so  wrould  be  to  add  to  the 
revealed  deposition  which  is  entirely  beyond  the  power  of  its 
guardian  and  interpreter.  Even  if  the  Church  institutes  a devo- 
tion or  feast  in  consequence  of  a private  revelation,  her  ultimate 
authority  is  not  the  revelation  but  the  theological  certitude  that 
such  a devotion  or  feast  is  in  harmony  with  the  public  revelation. 
Hence  we  are  not  bound  in  faith  to  believe  that  the  private  re- 
velation was  Divinely  given,  though  of  course  there  is  the  very 
strongest  presumption  of  this.  Still  less  are  we  bound  to  believe 
in  the  accessory  details  of  that  revelation,  which  details  contain 
indeed  in  all  probability  a subjective  element.  As  a Catholic  I 
am  bound  to  believe  that  the  devotion  to  the  Sacred  Heart  is 
orthodox  and  laudable.  I have  every  reason  to  believe  that  its 
revelation  to  Blessed  Margaret  Mary  was  the  work  of  God.  I am, 
however,  in  no  way  bound  to  accept  the  last  promise,  if  in  my 
private  judgment  I regard  that  promise  as  erroneous  or  at  least  as 
misleading.*  St  John  has  good  reason  to  insist  in  this  matter  also 
on  the  danger  of  illusion. 

Before  passing  on  I should  like  to  take  this  occasion  to  point 
out  how  ill-founded  is  the  modern  objection  to  the  finality  of 
the  Christian  revelation.  It  is  thought  that  a progressive  revela- 
tion never  complete  would  be  in  greater  harmony  with  a universe 
of  change  and  progress.  The  answer  is  that  the  dogmas  of  the 
Christian  revelation  are  of  such  infinite  depth  and  scope  that  their 
significance  can  never  be  exhausted.  No  advance  in  knowledge, 
secular  or  religious,  can  outgrow  them  ; no  process  of  development, 
however  long,  can  be  adequate  to  express  their  entire  meaning. 
Because  these  dogmas  are  in  immediate  relation  to  the  infinite  their 
significance  is  infinite.  There  is  no  need  of  new  doctrines.  The 


234  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Divine  revelation  is  adequate  to  the  religious  needs,  theoretical 
and  practical,  of  all  races  and  of  all  ages.  Man  can  discover 
nothing  of  ultimate  Reality  not  contained  explicitly  or  im- 
plicitly in  the  Christian  revelation  as  infallibly  proposed  to  our 
belief  by  the  Catholic  Church.  Any  theological  teaching  that  is 
really  outside  the  depositum,  and  in  so  far  as  it  is  outside  it,  is  a 
negation  of  some  portion  of  the  fulness  of  the  depositum  due  to  the 
exaggeration  or  one-sided  development  of  one  aspect  of  it.  Any 
such  additional  revelation,  therefore,  instead  of  adding  to  our 
knowledge  of  divine  truth,  would  limit  that  knowledge  and  would 
thus  cramp  instead  of  expanding  the  soul.  Thus  the  finality  of 
the  revealed  deposit  is  our  safeguard  against  doctrines  which, 
while  professing  to  impart  new  knowledge  of  religious  truth,  in 
reality  limit  the  knowledge  already  possessed  by  the  negation,  at 
least  implicit,  of  some  portion  of  it.1 

The  ensuing  chapters  of  this  second  book  of  The  Ascent  deal 
with  locutions.  These  are  divided  into  three  classes — successive 
locutions,  words  formed  by  the  mind  itself  so  as  to  appear  the 
words  of  an  objective  interior  voice,  which  locutions  are,  of  course, 
to  be  rejected  ; formal  words,  which  are  phenomenally  at  least 
objective — that  is  to  say,  which  appear  to  proceed  from  a source 
exterior  to  the  soul,  but  which  are  most  probably  objective  if  at  all, 
only  in  cause,  being  subjectively  formed  like  sensible  visions,  and 
which  are  also  to  be  rejected  ; and  substantial  words,  which  in 
form  are  akin  to  the  formal  words,  but  which  produce  a spiritual 
effect,  filling  the  soul  with  new  consolation,  peace,  strength  and 
spiritual  life,  indeed  effecting  in  the  soul  what  they  signify.  Since 
these  locutions  produce  this  quasi -sacramental  effect  in  the  soul, 
filling  it  with  virtues  and  graces,  they  are  to  be  accepted  as  direct 
aids  to  the  Divine  union.2  St  John  closes  the  book  with  a chapter 
on  divine  impressions  on  the  will  and,  deeper  still,  on  the  sub- 
stance of  the  soul.  These  impressions  are  a portion  of  the  mystical 
union  itself  and  obviously  closely  akin  to  the  “ touches  of  union  ” 
described  in  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  as  the  first  class  of  pure 
truths.  They  differ,  however,  in  that  they  are  not  primarily  im- 
pressed upon  the  understanding  or  spiritual  consciousness,  but 

1 God  could,  of  course,  reveal  more  truth  than  He  has  revealed  potentia  absohi/r. 
Having  regard,  however,  to  man’s  actual  constitution  and  condition,  the  revealed 
depositum  including  all  its  implications  exhausts  all  the  religious  truth  which 
he  is  capable  of  receiving.  A revelation  of  secular  truth  while  possible  would  be 
rather  pernicious  than  valuable. 

2 Locutions  have  been  already  discussed  with  visions  and  revelations. 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  235 

are  unions  of  the  tvill  or  the  central  substance  which  is  the  apex 
of  the  will,  and  are  received  by  the  understanding  only  through  an 
overflow  from  the  will  or  its  apex.  The  former  touches  of  union 
were  sudden  intuitions  of  the  Divine  Being  through  some  attribute 
supematurally  impressed  on  the  understanding.  These  latter 
touches  of  union  are  sudden  inflammations  of  love  wherein  God 
unites  Himself  to  and  is  received  in  the  will,  or  even  in  that 
inmost  depth  of  the  self  in  which  the  will  itself  is  rooted.  That  is 
to  say,  the  difference  between  these  two  kinds  of  transitory  union 
is  that  in  the  former  the  cognitive  element  greatly  predominates 
over  the  volitional  and  affective  elements  ; in  the  latter  the 
contrary  is  the  case.  Since  these  impressions  are  a portion  of  the 
mystical  union  to  which  the  entire  way  of  the  soul  has  been  directed, 
they  are  not  to  be  rejected,  but  conceived  in  a complete  passivity, 
in  which  the  only  activity  of  the  soul  is  reception.  The  third  book 
is  devoted  to  the  active  purgation  of  the  memory  by  hope  and  of 
the  will  by  charity.  St  John’s  teaching  concerning  these  purga- 
tions considers  from  another  aspect  the  progressive  detachment 
from  sensible  and  spiritual  goods  already  discussed.  Incidentally 
phenomena  pertaining  to  the  highest  mystical  union  are  spoken 
of  to  the  great  confusion  of  the  reader  who  imagines  himself  con- 
cerned only  with  the  way  of  purgation.  As  was  pointed  out  above, 
the  nature  of  his  subject-matter  forbids  the  strictly  scientific  ex- 
position which  St  John  aims  at.  In  The  Canticle  and  The  Living 
Flame  such  a method  is  not  even  attempted.  The  result  here  is 
much  cross  division,  and  the  result  of  this  is  in  turn  so  complex  a 
programme  that  the  treatise  breaks  down  under  it  in  the  middle 
of  this  third  book.1 

Nor  can  we  regard  the  memory  as  a primary  faculty  like 
understanding  and  will.  It  is  really  a subdivision  of  the  cognitive 
faculty.  Its  perfecting  virtue,  hope,  is  similarly  subordinate  to 
faith.  Moreover,  hope  does  not  unite  the  memory  with  God  as 
faith  and  charity  do  the  understanding  and  will.  Its  work  is  rather 
to  destroy  memory,  as  far  as  the  spiritual  life  is  concerned,  by 
making  the  soul  “ forget  the  things  that  are  behind  ” in  its  con- 
stant expectation  of  the  eternal  life  to  come.  This,  indeed,  St 


1 Despite  the  discovery  of  a small  fragment  which  would  have  been  inserted 
at  a considerable  distance  from  the  present  conclusion,  I cannot  agree  with  the 
editor  of  the  Edicion  Critica  that  The  Ascent  was  ever  completed.  It  is  far  easier 
to  suppose  the  discovered  fragment  specially  written  with  a view  to  later  insertion, 
than  the  unnoticed  absence  of  a large  portion  from  all  the  existent  MSS. 


236  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

John  points  out.  I have  already  expressed  my  belief  that  for  the 
inner  trinity  of  understanding,  memory  and  will,  should  be  sub- 
stituted another  trinity  of  the  substance  or  ground  of  the  soul, 
the  will,  the  cognition.  The  last  is  in  the  mystical  union,  rather 
intuition  than  understanding  in  the  usual  sense. 

The  purgation  of  the  will  by  love  from  all  rest  in  created  goods 
is  but  the  other  aspect  of  the  detachment  of  the  understanding 
from  creatures.  St  John’s  treatment  introduces  no  fresh  principle, 
and  is  simply  a searching  criticism  of  the  world’s  values,  indeed 
of  all  created  values,  in  which  the  illusion  and  emptiness  of  all 
creatures  as  ends  in  themselves  is  remorsely  laid  bare.  Incident- 
ally the  exasperating  pettinesses  of  the  class  stigmatised  by 
Huysmans  as  “ devots  ” and  “ bigots  ” are  exposed  with  a merci- 
less hand.  If  anyone  ever  knew  the  weaknesses  of  the  “ good  ” 
it  was  St  John.  In  discussing  image-worship  he  throws  out  the 
illuminating  suggestion  that  the  reason  why  miracles  are  worked 
at  one  image  or  shrine  rather  than  another  is  simply  the  special 
faith  and  devotion  of  the  worshippers.  “ It  is  certain,”  he  says 
(I  quote  again  a hitherto  unpublished  passage),  “that  the  image 
is  not  the  cause  why  God  so  acts,  for  that  in  itself  is  no  more  than 
a piece  of  painting,  but  rather  our  devotion  to  the  saint  depicted 
and  our  faith  in  him.  If,  therefore,  you  had  the  same  devotion,  and 
faith  in  Our  Lady  when  worshipping  before  one  image  as  when  wor- 
shipping before  another  ...  or  even  . . . without  the  use  of  either, 
you  would  receive  the  same  favours  ” (iii.  35).  It  is,  unhappily,  a 
psychological  impossibility  for  the  vast  majority  to  have  an  equally 
intense  devotion  and  faith  in  all  places,  or  even  in  all  churches 
alike,  and  hence  the  necessity  for  special  shrines  and  miraculous 
images.  St  John’s  explanation  is  striking  in  its  boldness  and 
penetration. 

Two  other  remarks  are  needed  on  St  John’s  inculcation  of  rigid 
detachment  from  particular  objels  de  pietL  The  first  is  to  note 
that  he  expressly  permits  attachment  to  such  in  the  case  of  be- 
ginners— that  is,  in  reality  of  the  great  mass  of  the  faithful.  But 
this  is  to  concede  by  implication  that  we  cannot  expect  from  the 
majority  of  Christians  in  this  life  the  detachment  of  a mystic. 

We  should  also  remark  St  John’s  express  disapproval  of  ugly 
religious  art.  The  usual  image  of  our  modem  churches,  being  as 
it  is  an  offensive  caricature  of  the  Sacred  Subject  which  it  repre- 
sents, indeed,  to  use  Huysmans’  strong  but  perfectly  justifiable 
language,  a blasphemy  against  the  Divine  Beauty,  would  have  met 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  237 

with  nothing  but  repudiation  from  our  saint.  Lack  of  ornament 
and  poverty  of  material  are  one  thing,  positive  ugliness  another. 
Detachment  does  not  and  should  not  involve  a tolerance  of  the 
milk-and-sugar  images,  the  glass-eyed  idiocies  so  dear  to  the 
average  modem  Catholic.  Shortly  afterwaids  The  Ascent  ends 
abruptly  in  the  middle  of  a warning  against  the  indulgence  of 
“ sensible  delectation  ” in  sermons,  a demand  for  a self-denial 
somewhat  less  heroic  than  many  others  of  the  active  night  ! 

Whether  any  more  was  written  we  cannot  tell.  A few  scraps 
have  been  found  that  would  have  come  somewhat  later  in  accord- 
ance with  St  John’s  scheme.  That  is  all.  Enough  has  certainly 
been  written  to  explain  and  emphasise  the  Saint’s  teaching  on  the 
active  purgation  or  night.  I hope  that  I have  succeeded  in  inter- 
preting his  doctrine  correctly.  It  is  now  time  to  proceed  to  the 
mystic  experience  itself,  including  as  it  does  the  two  passive 
nights. 


Appendix 

Throughout  The  Ascent  St  John  insists  on  the  danger  of 
diabolic  counterfeits  of  the  Divine  work.  His  demonology  knew 
no  hesitations.  To  many  modern  readers  this  will  seem  a defect. 

The  devils  and  their  doings  are  apt  to  appear  unreal,  grotesque 
products  of  superstitious  terror.  I would  call  their  attention  to 
the  following  points  : — 

(a)  There  is  a specific  class  of  madness  which  consists  in  the 
belief  of  the  patient  that  he  is  obsessed  or  possessed  by  an  evil 
spirit — a species  so  well  marked  as  to  have  received  the  name  of 
hystero-demonopathy  (James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experi- 
ences, p.  501,  footnote).  Such  a label  is  obviously  no  explana- 
tion. The  mental  physician  takes  account  of  the  psycho-physical 
phenomena  of  madness.  In  so  far  as  these  phenomena  are  due  to 
a physical  cause — for  instance,  to  a defect  or  injury  of  the  physical 
mechanism  of  the  soul — that  cause  also  falls  within  his  purview. 
If,  however,  the  ultimate  cause  be  of  the  spiritual  order,  and  the 
defect  or  injury  of  the  mechanism  of  the  brain  but  the  concomi- 
tant or  result  of  the  psychical  evil,  that  cause  lies  beyond  his 
province  altogether,  at  least  as  it  has  hitherto  been  understood. 
For  the  method  of  the  mental  doctor  has  been  to  approach  and  to 
handle  the  psychical  through  the  physical.  To-day,  indeed,  we 


238  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

are  witnesses  of  a change,  of  a growing  tendency  to  treat  mental 
diseases  by  psychical  methods.  The  general  adoption  of  these 
methods  may  well  lead  to  a revision  of  the  popular  views  on  such 
matters  as  possession. 

( b ) Our  Lord  assumed  the  reality  of  diabolic  possession  and 
practised  exorcism.  Indeed  this  formed  a prominent  feature  of 
His  ministry.  We  cannot  logically  escape  this  fact  by  vague 
language  about  epilepsy  and  madness  and  retain  our  faith  in  the 
Incarnation.  How  should  God  Incarnate  mistake  madness  for 
demoniacal  possession,  or  if  He  did  not  make  that  mistake,  how 
should  He  go  through  the  solemn  pretence  of  an  exorcism  known 
to  be  an  empty  farce,  or  at  best  a means  of  suggestion  based  on  a 
known  falsehood  ? There  is  clearly  no  help  for  it.  Either  we 
must  accept  demoniacal  possession  or  deny  Our  Lord’s  Divinity 
as  it  is  believed  by  the  Church.  Huxley  saw  this  dilemma  and 
pressed  it  home  on  the  half-hearted  Victorian  Christians  who,  in 
denying  the  former,  while  accepting  the  latter,  tried  to  combine 
two  incompatible  positions. 

(c)  No  one  can  accuse  Mr  Clement  Webb  of  believing  anything 
against  his  private  judgment,  because  he  is  compelled  to  do  so  by 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Nevertheless  in  his  Wilde  Lectures  on 
Natural  Theology  he  sums  up  the  question  of  the  existence  of  non- 
human evil  spirits  in  the  following  terms  : — “ That  evil  is  present 
in  the  human  will  is  not  deniable.  If,  then,  the  presence  of  evil  in 
the  human  will  is  not  incompatible  with  the  ultimate  sovereignty 
of  a good  God,  the  presence  of  evil  in  finite  wills  other  than  human 
is  not  incompatible  with  it,  and  would  in  no  way  increase  the 
difficulty,  though  it  may  not  diminish  it.  From  Plato  to  J.  S. 
Mill  there  have  not  been  wanting  thinkers  who  could  not  otherwise 
interpret  the  facts  than  by  such  an  admission.  . . . We  cannot 
suppose  with  our  present  knowledge  that  the  pre-human  world 
was  free  from  what  we  commonly  call  evils  (e.g.  from  animal 
suffering),  the  existence  of  which  in  God’s  world  constitutes  for  us 
a problem.  . . . The  recognition  of  an  evil  will  or  wills  in  the 
world  by  which  our  environment  has  been  injuriously  affected,  in 
the  same  way  as  it  undoubtedly  is  affected  by  evil  human  wills, 
would,  while  not  affording  any  assistance  to  us  in  answering  the 
ultimate  question  of  the  origin  of  evil,  yet  remove  any  additional 
difficulty  due  to  the  assumption  we  are  nowadays  so  apt  to  make 
without  hesitation  that,  while  moral  evil  is  explicable  in  so  far  as 
its  possibility  is  involved  in  the  existence  of  free  will,  moral  evil 


THE  ACTIVE  NIGHT  239 

can  exist  only  in  human  wills,  and  that  the  environment  of 
humanity  must  be  attributed  wholly,  if  at  all,  to  God  and  in  no 
degree  to  the  operation  of  finite  wills  other  than  human.  The 
supposition  that  it  may  be  in  part  attributed  to  the  operation  or  be 
consequential  upon  the  operation  of  such  finite  wills,  suggested  by 
Plato  and  others,  is  not  to  be  ruled  out  because  such  a supposition 
has  in  the  past  been  presented  in  an  unacceptable  form  ” {Studies 
in  the  History  of  Natural  Theology,  pp.  99-101). 

If,  then,  it  is  not  intrinsically  unreasonable  to  believe  in  evil 
spirits,  we  need  not  shrink  with  the  timidity  now  all  too  common, 
even  among  orthodox  Catholics,  from  proclaiming  our  assent  to 
the  infallible  teaching  of  the  Church  that  such  beings  do  in  fact 
exist.  But  if  they  exist,  it  is  most  probable  that  they  should  act 
on  men  in  various  ways,  and  the  Church  teaches  us  that  they  do  so. 
Modern  investigation  of  telepathic  and  hypnotic  phenomena  has 
abundantly  proved  the  influence  exerted  by  one  human  soul  on 
another,  the  power  of  mental  suggestion.  If  this  suggestion  is 
exercised  very  strongly  and  continuously  the  patient’s  will  becomes 
more  or  less  completely  subject  to  the  will  of  the  operator.  Sup- 
pose this  suggestion  to  be  exercised  by  an  evil  discamate  spirit, 
we  should  have  an  obsession  or,  in  extreme  cases,  a possession  of 
the  human  spirit  by  this  evil  spirit,  and  the  effects  of  this  obsession 
or  possession  would  in  some  instances  extend  even  to  the  body. 
Especially  would  the  mechanism  of  the  nerves  and  brain  be  thrown 
out  of  gear  by  this  potent  obsessing  or  possessing  suggestion 
exercised  upon  the  soul  to  whom  it  belonged,  and  this  would  in 
turn  cause  the  phenomena  of  mania,  hypnosis  and  nervous  break- 
down. This  explanation  of  possession  by  suggestion  is  quoted  by 
M.  Joly  in  his  Psychology  of  the  Saints  (Eng.  trs.,  p.  110)  as  that 
advocated  by  Pere  Bonniot.  “ In  the  one  case,”  writes  Bonniot 
(i.e.  possession),  “ the  devil  acts  upon  the  subject,  in  the  other  the 
experimenter,  and  this  is  about  the  only  difference  between  the 
two  cases.”  “ Possessions  are  cases  of  hypnotism,  in  which 
the  evil  spirit  plays  the  part  of  hypnotiser.”  Such  a conception 
of  diabolic  possession  quite  removes  the  grotesqueness  attaching  to 
the  notion  of  a devil  lodged  inside  a human  body  and  brings  posses- 
sion within  a class  of  phenomena  whose  existence  is  indubit- 
able and  whose  psycho-physical  characteristics  are  well  known.1 

1 1 should  also  explain  by  such  a permanent  suggestion- contact  the  presence 
of  Mary  in  the  soul  vouchsafed  to  her  great  servant  and  preacher,  Bl.  Louis  Marie 
Grignon  de  Montfort. 


240  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

It  also  renders  full  justice  to  the  objective  reality  of  the 
possessions  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  That  similar  cases 
do  exist  even  to-day  is  well  attested  by  the  evidence  of  spirit- 
istic investigators  and  of  missionaries,  and  is  indeed  admitted  by 
the  scientific  recognition  of  hystero-demonopathy.  Such  con- 
siderations as  these  should  make  the  reader  of  St  John  realise 
that  his  acceptance  of  demonology,  or  diabolic  mysticism,  as  it 
is  sometimes  termed,  if  perhaps  requiring  modification  in  detail,  is 
fundamentally  sound,  and  is  as  justified  by  the  evidence  as  it  is 
demanded  by  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  It  is  true  that  St 
John  is  chiefly  concerned  with  lesser  phenomena  than  possession 
— namely,  with  diabolical  counterfeits  of  various  concomitants 
of  mystical  prayer.  The  mystical  prayer-union  itself  being  the 
operation  of  God  in  the  central  depths  accessible  to  Him  alone  is, 
as  St  John  often  points  out,  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  diabolic 
imitation.  If,  however,  the  existence  of  the  greater  be  admitted, 
no  one  will  boggle  at  the  existence  of  the  less.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  St  John,  like  all  his  contemporaries,  saw 
diabolical  operation  where  it  was  absent.  We  have  seen  that  a 
large  class  of  supernatural  phenomena — for  instance,  visions — are 
objective  in  cause,  subjective  in  mode.  Often,  however,  these 
phenomena  are  purely  subjective  in  cause  and  mode  alike  and  are 
then  purely  natural.  St  John  would  have  been  unduly  inclined 
to  ascribe  such  cases  to  an  objective  evil  cause — namely,  the  devil. 
That  is,  however,  no  reason  why  we  should  go  to  the  opposite 
extreme  and  deny  that  such  an  objective  evil  cause  ever  sets  the 
subjective  phenomena  in  motion.  Such  a denial  would  be  un- 
warrantable, improbable  and  opposed  to  the  universal  teaching  of 
Catholic  theologians. 


CHAPTER  IX 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  PREVIOUS  TO  THE  NIGHT 
OF  SPIRIT 

When  the  sun  was  setting  a deep  sleep  fell  upon  Abram  and  a great 
darksome  horror  seized  upon  him. 

The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Abram  by  a vision,  saying  : “ Fear 
not,  I am  thy  reward  exceeding  great .”  Genesis  xvi. 

Jacob  remained  alone  and  behold  a man  wrestled  with  him  till 
morning.  Jacob  asked  him:  “ Tell  me  by  what  name  thou  art 
called  ? ” He  answered  : “ Why  dost  thou  ask  my  name  ? ” And 
He  blessed  him.  Genesis  xxxii. 

By  degrees  I passed  from  bodies  to  the  soul,  which  through  the 
bodily  senses  perceives,  and  thence  again  to  the  reasoning  faculty,  to 
which  what  is  received  from  the  senses  of  the  body  is  referred  to  be 
judged ; Which  finding  itself  also  to  be  in  me  a thing  variable  raised 
itself  up  to  its  own  understanding  . . . withdrawing  itself  from 
those  troops  of  contradictory  phantasms  that  so  it  might  find  what  that 
light  was  whereby  it  was  bedewed,  when  without  all  doubting  it  cried 
out  “ That  the  Unchangeable  was  to  be  preferred  to  the  changeable,” 
whence  also  it  knew  That  Unchangeable  . . . and  thus  with  the  flash 
of  one  trembling  glance  it  arrived  at  That  Which  Is.  ..  . But  1 
could  not  fix  my  gaze  thereon ; and  my  infirmity  being  struck  back,  I 
was  thrown  again  on  my  wonted  habits,  carrying  along  with  me  only 
a loving  memory  and  a longing  for  what  I had,  as  it  were,  perceived 
the  odour  of,  but  was  not  yet  able  to  feed  on. 

St  Augustine, 

Confessions,  Book  VII.  xxiii.  (Trs.  Pusey). 

Since  mystical  experience  is  an  increase  and  manifestation  of 
sanctifying  grace,  it  does  not  differ  essentially  from  the  hidden  life 
of  grace  in  the  sonls  of  all  the  just.  Throughout  the  entire  process 
from  grace  to  glory  no  new  principle  is  introduced.  Hence  the 
mystical  union-intuition  involves  no  such  introduction  of  a new 
principle.  It  is  but  a development  and  unfolding  of  a principle 
Q 241 


242  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

already  present.  Whereas  the  infusion  of  sanctifying  grace  in  our 
regeneration  is  a new  creation,  the  mystical  way  is  but  the  growth 
of  that  new  creature,  mystical  experience  a concomitant  mani- 
festation of  the  new  life  thus  growing.  Mystical  union  in  its 
conscious  aspect  is  the  experience  of  God  Present  and  Active  in 
the  soul  through  the  new  relationship  constituted  in  principle  and 
potency  by  the  first  infusion  of  sanctifying  grace.  As  the  Divine 
Union  becomes  more  intimate,  the  Divine  Action  more  potent  and 
more  prevalent  over  the  merely  human  self-principled  life  of  the 
soul,  that  Union  and  Action  become  gradually  manifest  within 
the  field  of  consciousness.  We  have  therefoie  no  reason  to 
expect  any  distinct  line  of  demarcation  between  the  ordinary  life 
of  grace  and  mystical  experience  or  prayer.  The  latter  succeeds 
to  the  former  gradually  and  imperceptibly,  as  dawn  to  the  dark- 
ness of  night,  youth  to  childhood,  spring  to  winter,  friendship  to 
mere  acquaintance.  If  we  search  the  writings  of  the  mystics  for 
some  definite  criterion  whereby  to  distinguish  between  all  states 
of  mystical  prayer  and  all  forms  of  ordinary  prayer,  we  shall  fail 
to  find  it.  It  is  true  that  there  can  be  no  confusion  between 
ordinary  prayer  and  well-marked  mystical  states.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  state  clearly  where  ordinary  prayer  ends  and  mystical 
experience  begins.  The  latter  gradually  develops  out  of  the 
former.  At  first  the  indwelling  Presence  of  God,1  constituted  by 
the  operation  of  grace  uniting  the  soul  and  its  faculties  with  the 
Godhead,  is  manifested  very  faintly,  almost  imperceptibly,  for  a 
very  brief  space  and  at  rare  intervals.  Gradually  the  manifesta- 
tion becomes  more  clearly  marked,  endures  longer  and  occurs  more 
frequently.  Finally,  in  a semi-conscious  form,  the  manifestation 
endures  permanently  in  the  ground  of  the  soul.  As  the  old  man, 
the  natural  and  limited  sold  life,  decays,  the  new  man,  the  super- 
natural participation  in  the  unlimited  life  of  God,  is  gradually 
manifested.  It  is  manifested  at  first  when  the  soul  has  deliber- 
ately turned  to  God  in  prayer,  and  is  therefore  called  a state  of 
prayer.  But  since  the  work  of  grace  is  to  turn  the  soul  Godward, 
as  grace  increases  in  the  soul,  the  entire  activity  of  that  soul 
gradually  becomes  a Godward  turning,  a union  with  Him,  there- 
fore prayer.  Finally,  when  the  central  functions  of  the  soul  are 

1 More  strictly  an  inhabitation  of  God  in  His  Third  Subsistence  or  Person— 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Petavius,  following  many  of  the  early  fathers,  and  himself 
followed  by  Scheeben,  is  not  content  with  the  mere  appropriation  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  taught  by  most  modern  theologians. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  243 

continuously  turned  Godward  and  the  soul  is  conscious  of  their 
union  with  God,  the  soul  is  always  in  prayer.  Indeed  we  should 
remember  that  every  soul  in  grace  is  always  in  an  unconscious 
habitual  prayer  by  the  very  fact  that  the  will  is  united  to  God  as 
its  supreme  end.  We  speak,  indeed,  of  mystical  union  as  prayer, 
and  we  do  not  usually  give  that  name  to  the  entire  spiritual  life  of 
a soul  in  grace.  In  principle,  however,  both  are  prayer  at  diverse 
degrees,  since  prayer  is  a conversion  to  God  and  union  with  Him, 
and  this  conversion  and  union  are  fundamentally  identical  in  all 
stages  of  the  life  of  grace.  This  essential  identity  of  the  life  of 
grace  through  its  manifestation  in  mystical  experience  to  its  con- 
summation in  beatific  vision  would  forbid  us  to  expect  any  sudden 
change  from  one  stage  to  another.  Nor,  as  a rule,  is  this  the  case. 
It  is  true  that  in  certain  souls  the  first  manifestation  of  grace 
is  sudden.  This,  however,  is  the  exception,  not  the  rule,  and  is 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  some  special  obstacle  hid  the  secret 
growth  of  grace  till  it  had  reached  a degree  far  beyond  that  when  it 
usually  begins  to  be  felt.  This  obstacle  is  suddenly  removed  by 
some  extraordinary  actual  grace  or  external  occurrence,  as  a tower 
Avhose  foundations  have  been  long  undermined  falls  suddenly  in  a 
gale  of  unusual  strength.  I know  that  certain  mystical  authors 
attempt  to  establish  the  sharp  distinction  here  deprecated.  Pere 
Poulain,  for  instance,  defines  mystical  prayer  in  contradistinction 
to  ordinary  prayer,  as  a prayer  which  we  cannot  acquire  by  our  own 
efforts,  not  even  faintly  nor  for  a moment.1  Can  we  then  acquire 
of  ourselves  the  least  degree  of  prayer  that  proceeds  from  sanctify- 
ing grace  ? Surely  this  is  impossible.  The  form  of  our  prayer  is 
indeed  our  own  work,  but  its  hidden  principle  is  the  infused  grace 
of  God.  When  mystical  prayer  begins,  this  hidden  principle  has 
begun  to  determine  the  form  of  our  prayer.  We  need  no  longer 
formulate  our  prayer  by  a laborious  search  composition  and  rejec- 
tion of  ideas  and  images.  Grace  gradually  dispenses  with  these 
and  directly  moves  the  soul  Godward  and  unites  with  Him  the 
radical  faculties,  especially  the  will.  As  the  action  of  grace — that 
is,  of  God  through  grace — increases  the  work  of  the  faculties  be- 
comes increasingly  that  of  attentive  receptivity — that  is,  they 
become  passive  in  relation  to  the  Divine  action  received,  while 
increasingly  active  in  their  absorbed  attention  and  reception  of  an 
activity  so  supernaturally  intense.  The  multiplicity  of  images 
and  distinct  concepts  also  gradually  gives  place  to  a unity  of 
1 Poulain,  Les  Graces  d’Oraison,  chap.  i. 


244  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

simple  attention  to  the  Divine  work,  to  a unified  absorption  of  the 
soul  in  its  Divine  Object,  the  understanding  in  obscure  faith- 
intuition  of  God,  the  transcendent,  unintelligible  Reality  and  the 
will  in  love  of  that  Divine  Being.  In  a process  so  gradual,  where 
are  we  to  set  up  well-defined  boundaries  ? How  are  we  to  mark 
off  sharply  one  state  from  another  ? “I  cannot  pretend,”  writes 
Professor  James,  “ to  detail  to  you  the  sundry  stages  of  the 
Christian  mystical  life.  ...  I confess  that  the  subdivisions  and 
names  which  we  find  in  the  Catholic  books  seem  to  me  to  represent 
nothing  objectively  distinct  ” ( Varieties  of  Religious  Experience, 
p.  408).  It  is  indeed  impossible  to  give  entire  assent  to  this 
dictum.  Certain  stages  markedly  different  in  character  can  be 
clearly  discerned  on  the  mystical  way,  or,  as  I would  rather  express 
it,  on  the  wajr  of  sanctifying  grace.  Certainly  we  cannot  fix  the 
exact  point  where  one  stage  ends  and  the  next  begins.  Neverthe- 
less each  of  these  stages  in  its  fulness  presents  a character  of  its  own, 
perceptible  even  to  us,  who  only  know  it  externally  through  the 
study  of  books.  It  is  the  same  here  as  it  is  with  the  four  seasons. 
No  one  could  possibly  confuse  a typical  winter’s  morning  with  a 
typical  spring  morning,  or  a typical  summer’s  day  with  a typical 
day  of  autumn.  We  have  only  to  recall  first  a walk  through  the 
fields  in  July,  then  a similar  walk  on  a fine  day  in  September,  to 
recognise  in  the  former  summer,  in  the  latter  autumn.  On  the 
former  occasion  summer  manifested  itself  in  the  air,  saturated  with 
light  and  heat,  scented  and  murmurous,  and  in  the  rich  and 
vigorous  life  all  but  visible  in  the  grass,  flowers  and  leaves.  On 
the  latter  the  crisp  sharpness  of  the  air,  the  mellowness  of  the 
vegetation  and  the  softness  of  the  sunlight  told  us  plainly  that  the 
Earth’s  life  blood,  which  in  summer  had  coursed  so  lustily  through 
her  veins,  was  now  being  poured  out,  and  that  the  grave  of  winter 
awaited  her  ; in  a word,  that  it  was  autumn.  But  we  cannot  say 
that  till  such-and-such  a day  it  was  summer,  after  such-and-such 
a day  it  was  autumn.  Such  an  accurate  delineation  can  only  be 
made  from  the  purely  abstract  point  of  view  of  the  calendar,  which 
fixes  arbitrary  boundaries  between  the  four  seasons.  There  is 
often  an  autumn  day  that  is  succeeded  by  many  days  of  summer 
and  is  but  a forerunner  of  a season  not  yet  fully  come. 

Still  less  can  we  fix  the  bounds  of  even  the  more  marked  stages 
of  mystical  experience — for  example,  the  prayer  of  quiet  ecstasy, 
the  night  of  spirit  and  mystical  marriage.  Nevertheless  these 
stages  are  as  objectively  real  and  as  plainly  distinct  in  character 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  245 

as  are  the  four  seasons.  The  minor  subdivisions,  on  the  other 
hand,  so  copiously  multiplied  by  those  modem  theologians  who 
wish  to  construct  a mystical  theology,  as  minutely  scientific  as  the 
dogmatic  theology  of  the  school,  and  the  moral  theology  of  the 
casuist,  serve  only  to  darken  knowledge  and  to  confuse  the  mind. 
They  are  wholly  absent  from  the  pages  of  the  great  mystics, 
such  as  St  John,  and  the  less  the  student  of  mysticism  concerns 
himself  with  them  the  better  for  him. 

In  Father  Germano’s  Life  of  Gemma  Galgani  1 we  find  a typical 
list  of  these  divisions  taken  from  Scaramelli.  As  he  gives  them 
there,  the  successive  stages  of  the  mystical  way  are  Mystic  Recol- 
lection, Spiritual  Silence,  Contemplation  or  Quiet,  Mystic  Sleep, 
Spiritual  Inebriety,  Flame  of  Love,  Thirst  and  Anguish  of  Love, 
Mystic  Espousals  (by  this  is  meant  mystical  marriage).  Of  these 
many  are  simply  subordinate  phenomena  attendant  on  several 
different  stages  of  mystical  union.  For  instance,  the  Flame  and 
Thirst  of  Love  belong  in  a higher  degree  to  mystical  marriage 
than  to  the  lower  stage  where  they  are  here  placed.  This  error 
of  excessive  schematism  is  pointed  out  by  Pere  Poulain  in  the 
thirtieth  chapter  of  Les  Graces  di  Orals  on.  There  he  tells  us 
that  the  systematisers  have  sometimes  numbered  as  many  as 
fifteen  degrees  of  mystical  prayer,  obtained  by  this  false  method 
of  reckoning  sub-phenomena  common  to  more  than  one  degree  of 
union  as  being  themselves  distinct  degrees.  My  own  view  is  that 
it  is  best  to  recognise  five  stages  of  the  mystic  way,  in  which 
quantitative  increase  of  union  has  issued  in  a qualitative  difference 
distinctly  cognisable.  Nevertheless,  since  each  stage  in  turn  passes 
over  into  the  next,  they  are  incapable  of  exact  delimitation. 
Out  of  these  five  stages  or  degrees  of  mystical  union  three  are 
positive,  two  negative.  The  first  stage  is  the  Passive  Night  of 
Sense,  the  negative  entrance  into  the  mystic  way.  Then  follows 
Quiet.  Quiet  is  subdivided  by  St  Teresa  into  two  degrees,  Quiet 
and  Full  Union  (. Autobiography , The  Interior  Castle).  These  are, 
as  Pere  Poulain  points  out  (chap,  xxx),  merely  one  and  the  same 
form  of  mystical  prayer  experienced  at  two  different  degrees  of  in- 
tensity. Since  these  sub-degrees  thus  lack  qualitative  difference, 
their  distinction  must  be  predominantly  artificial.  After  Quiet 
follows  Ecstasy.  This  is  treated  by  Pere  Poulain  as  the  third  sub- 
division of  Quiet,  Quiet  at  its  fullest  intensity.  I incline,  how- 
ever, to  believe  that  Ecstasy  is  rather  a foretaste  of  the  spiritual 

1 Chap.  xxii. 


246  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

marriage  to  come,  eTfected  primarily  in  the  will,  while  Quiet  is 
effected  primarily  in  the  spiritual  consciousness.  St  John  does 
not  discuss  the  distinction  between  these  two  or  three  stages. 
Then  follows  a negative  stage,  the  Passive  Night  of  Spirit.  After 
that  ensues  the  final  stage,  the  Mystical  Marriage,  including  as  its 
incepbion  its  imperfect  form,  termed  by  St  John  the  Spiritual 
Betrothal.  It  will  be  useful,  therefore,  to  bear  in  mind  these  four 
or  five  degrees,  paying  no  heed  to  the  useless  and  unjustifiable  sub- 
divisions above  mentioned,  and  always  remembering  that  even 
these  merge  into  each  other  so  imperceptibly  that  it  is  impossible 
to  fix  between  them  any  clear  demarcation.1 

We  must  also  bear  in  mind  that  when  we  attempt  any  descrip- 
tion of  mystical  states  we  are  trying  to  express  purely  spiritual 
realities  in  language  drawn  from  sensible  phenomena,  a language 
of  symbols.  The  very  titles  of  certain  mystical  states  or  degrees 
are  symbols — for  example,  the  dark  night  and  mystical  or  spiritual 
marriage.  The  more  advanced  and  therefore  the  more  purely 
spiritual  the  state  or  experience,  the  more  symbolic  must  the 
description  be,  for  the  description  must  then  be  furthest  removed 
from  the  reality.  But  it  is  obvious  that  the  same  symbols  will 
apply  equally  well  to  different  states.  Different  degrees  of  love 
will,  for  example,  be  described  by  the  same  symbols  of  fire  and 
wounds,  different  degrees  of  intuition  by  the  same  symbolism  of 
light  or  darkness.  This  makes  it  a very  difficult,  often  an  im- 
possible, task,  for  us  who  lack  the  experiences  to  be  compared, 
to  distinguish  them  by  the  external  symbolic  and  therefore 
altogether  inadequate  descriptions  of  mystical  writers.  One  and 
the  same  description  will  often  fit  different  degrees,  since  it  is 
really  but  an  indication,  not  a description  at  all.  A striking 
illustration  of  this  can  be  obtained  by  comparing  the  order  of 
stanzas  in  the  earlier  and  later  versions  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle. 
In  the  second  version,  the  only  one  printed  previously  to  the 
Edicion  Critica,  stanza  22  is  devoted  to  an  account  of  the 
mystical  marriage,  and  all  the  following  stanzas  to  stanza  35 
inclusive  are  concerned  with  that  state.  In  the  earlier  version, 
however,  stanza  22  is  the  27th  stanza.  Out  of  the  stanzas 
22  to  35  of  the  later  version  no  less  than  ten  occur  in  the 
earlier  before  the  stanza  which  introduces  the  mystical 
marriage,  and  are  therefore  applied  to  earlier  stages  of  mystical 

1 Such  a clear  line  of  demarcation  is  most  of  all  to  be  found  in  the  case  of  the 
night  of  spirit,  but  even  there  is  far  from  absolute. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  247 

experience.  Yet  the  prose  descriptions  attached  to  each  stanza 
are  substantially  identical  in  both  versions.  This,  then,  is  another 
reason  why  it  is  lost  labour  to  attempt  to  give  so  exact  a definition 
of  the  different  stages  that  their  boundaries  can  be  accurately 
delineated.  Only  of  the  more  important  and  well-marked  degrees, 
and  of  these  only  of  each  at  its  height  and  fulness,  can  such  indica- 
tions be  given  as  shall  enable  their  differences  to  be  in  some  measure 
suggested.  To  fix  the  boundaries  of  states  which  develop  one 
into  the  other,  and  which  are  of  their  very  nature  so  indescribable, 
is  a sheer  impossibility. 

The  inutility  must  now  be  patent  of  any  attempt  to  distinguish 
where  the  ordinary  prayer  of  hidden  grace  ends  and  the  mystical 
prayer  of  grace  manifest,  at  first  so  dimly  as  to  be  all  but  imper- 
ceptible, begins.  The  higher  stages  of  ordinary  prayer  have  been 
sometimes  termed  acquired  contemplation,  mystical  prayer  being 
distinguished  as  infused  contemplation.  The  Obscure  Knowledge 
of  God,  for  instance,  adopts  this  distinction,  which  is,  however, 
absent  from  any  of  the  indubitably  authentic  works  of  St  John. 
Contemplation  is  itself  defined  as  “ the  intuition  of  an  object  with- 
out discursive  reflection.”  In  this  contemplation  “ the  substantial 
nature  of  the  object  has  been  abstracted  from  its  accidental 
properties  and  from  its  material  embodiment.”  I have  translated 
by  intuition  the  Spanish  phrase,  “ consideracion  de  simple  in- 
teligencia,”  literally  “ regard  of  simple  knowledge.”  The  author 
evidently  understood  by  contemplation  the  occupation  of  the  under- 
standing by  a simple  apprehension  without  discursive  reasoning 
or  sense-derived  images.  This  contemplation  when  natural  is,  he 
says,  “ acquired  by  the  diligent  and  careful  work  of  the  soul,  the 
fruit  of  long  and  intense  meditation.”  When  supernatural  it  is 
“ due  to  a supernatural  light  infused  by  God  into  the  soul,  which 
is  now  moved  by  God  with  a supernatural  movement  ” (chap.  i). 
It  is,  however,  obvious  that  this  distinction  being  causal,  not 
phenomenal,  is  no  criterion.  We  are  left  in  ignorance  when  a 
particular  contemplation  is  the  fruit  of  our  past  activity  and  when 
it  is  the  work  of  God  in  the  soul.  Such  a criterion  is,  however, 
attempted.  “ The  most  certain  criterion,”  says  this  writer,  “ of 
supernatural  and  infused  contemplation  is  that  we  do  not  enjoy  it 
whenever  we  will  to  do  so,  nor  does  it  cease  at  our  will  and  pleasure. 
On  the  contrary,  it  comes  when  God  wills  and  ceases  at  His  good 
pleasure,  God  bestowing  it  and  taking  it  away  when  He  wills  and 
deems  good  to  do  so.”  Such  a criterion  is,  however,  nugatory. 


248  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

There  are  many  forms  of  purely  natural  perception  that  are  more 
or  less  out  of  our  power  to  exercise  at  pleasure.  An  illuminating 
insight  into  natural  truth  is  not  ours  when  we  will.  It  often 
comes  to  us  suddenly  and  unexpectedly,  in  a flash.  ^Esthetic 
appreciation  is  most  variable.  The  same  beauty  of  art  or  nature 
will  at  one  time  absorb  the  soul  with  admiration,  at  another  leave 
us  cold  and  indifferent.  Indeed  the  tendency  of  modem  psy- 
chology has  been  to  show  that  the  intellectual  insight  of  the  phil- 
osopher or  scientist,  and  the  aesthetic  insight  of  the  artist,  which 
when  extraordinarily  intense  become  the  insight  of  genius,  are 
usually  manifested  suddenly,  often  as  if  externally  infused  after  a 
long  train  of  apparently  fruitless  study  or  practice.  The  ideas  or 
perceptions  of  conscious  activity  have  accumulated  gradually  in  the 
subconsciousness  and  have  there  combined  together  to  form  a new 
idea  or  perception,  a new  insight  or  apprehension  of  reality,  which 
then  becomes  suddenly  conscious.  Therefore  suddenness  and  ap- 
parent externality  are  no  criteria  of  supernatural  working.  Indeed 
our  author  proceeds  to  remark  : “ It  is  true  that  as  a general 
rule  He  (God)  gives  this  to  those  who  persevere  in  the  practice  of 
prayer  and  of  the  acquired  natural  contemplation,  rewarding  the 
soul  for  her  labours  with  this  infused  supernatural  contemplation.” 
It  is  not  indeed  the  case  that  a sudden  irruption  into  con- 
sciousness from  the  subconscious  depths  of  the  soul  disproves 
supernatural  action.  This  Professor  James  himself  admits.1 
Nevertheless  such  a sudden  irruption  is  no  proof  of  such  action. 

Our  author,  however,  proceeds  to  invoke  another  test,  and  says 
that  in  supernatural  contemplation  the  soul  enjoys  an  absolute 
certainty  of  the  reality  of  the  Divine  object  of  that  contemplation. 
This  criterion  is  valid,  unless  we  are  to  declare  mystical  experience 
a delusion,  which  we  have  no  more  right  to  do  than  we  have  to 
declare  aesthetic  or  moral  experience,  or  even  sense  experience 
itself,  a delusion.  In  the  earliest  stages,  however,  as  we  shall  see 
from  St  John’s  account  of  the  night  of  sense,  the  contemplation  is 
so  dim  as  to  be  almost  imperceptible.  In  that  case  this  certainty 
is  absent,  for  there  is  no  strongly  impressed  object  to  cause  it.  We 
are  therefore  still  left  without  a criterion  which  would  justify 
the  drawing  of  a hard  and  fast  line  between  acquired  and  infused 
contemplation.  Acquired  contemplation  is  the  gradual  super- 
session  of  discursive  meditation  through  sense  images  by  a unified 
attention  of  the  soul  to  an  obscure  apprehension  or  intuition  of  God 

1 See  introductory  chapter. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  249 

as  transcendent  of  all  distinct  images  and  concepts,  which  attention 
is  an  operation  of  love,  as  the  obscure  intuition  or  negative  appre- 
hension is  an  operation  of  faith.  But  this  process  is  itself  the  work 
of  grace,  through  infused  love  and  infused  faith,  and  is  therefore 
the  result  of  a supernatural  activity  making  use  of  our  natural 
faculties  and  working  in  accordance  with  their  laws.  At  first  this 
unified  prayer  requires  laborious  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  soul  to 
exclude  images  and  multiple  notions  and  to  concentrate  first  on 
some  one  distinct  notion  and  finally  on  the  negative  apprehension 
or  obscure  intuition  of  God  as  the  transcendent  unintelligible  Object 
of  love.  So  long  as  this  labour  of  the  faculties  occupies  the  field 
of  consciousness  the  contemplation  seems  to  be  wholly  acquired. 
When,  however,  the  working  of  God  through  grace  becomes  fully 
conscious,  and  our  own  activity,  now  trained  in  concentration  and 
detachment,  becomes  the  obedient  servant  or  passive  receptacle 
of  that  supernatural  activity,  the  contemplation  seems  to  be 
wholly  infused.  In  reality,  it  was  not  wholly  acquired  before,  nor 
is  it  wholly  infused  now.  The  infused  contemplation  is  largely 
the  fruit  of  the  acquired  concentration  and  detachment  which 
have  enabled  the  soul  to  become  conscious  of  the  infused  activity 
of  God  through  grace  and  its  concomitant  faith  and  charity, 
which  was,  however,  present  unconsciously  from  the  beginning. 
If  it  be  asked  why  we  cannot  regard  the  entire  process  as  the 
natural  work  of  the  religious  sense  of  man,  as  the  perception  of  the 
artist  is  the  work  of  his  aesthetic  sense,  the  answer  is  that  no  merely 
natural  activity  could  produce  an  experience  whose  supernatural 
character,  when  that  experience  is  fully  developed,  is  indubitable  to 
the  soul  that  possesses  it.  It  has,  moreover,  been  already  shown 
in  the  introductory  chapter,  and  confirmed  by  the  admissions  of 
modem  psychologists  of  the  subconscious,  that  mystical  experience 
is  the  experience  of  an  objective  superhuman  Reality,  which  ob- 
jective Reality  was  identified  with  God.  Therefore,  even  if  mystical 
experience  or  contemplation  were  a purely  natural  activity  of  man, 
its  object,  at  least,  is  the  supernatural  Godhead.  The  Deity,  how- 
ever, is  essentially  a living  force,  indeed  a pure  act,  not  a dead 
and  passive  object.  Therefore  when  the  soul  in  mystical  experi- 
ence possesses  this  immediate  apprehension  of  God  and  communion 
with  Him,  it  is  in  immediate  communion  with  an  Activity  by 
comparison  with  Which  it  is  passive.  Therefore  in  this  im- 
mediate communion  between  the  soul  and  its  Divine  Object  the 
activity  must  rather  be  the  activity  of  God  in  the  soul  than  of 


250  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  soul  towards  God — although  the  latter  is  not  thereby  excluded.1 
Hence  the  activity  whereby  the  human  soul  thus  apprehends  God 
immediately  in  mystical  contemplation  cannot  be  its  own  natural 
activity,  but  must  be  the  supernatural  activity  of  God  received 
in  and  through  its  own  activity  rendered  by  grace  obedient  and 
receptive  to  the  Divine  influx.  Furthermore,  if  the  object  of  the 
soul’s  experience  is  supernatural— that  is  to  say,  wholly  transcen- 
dent of  the  connatural  object  of  the  functions  of  the  human  soul — 
the  experience  of  that  Object  must  also  be  supernatural,  the  super- 
natural working  of  God  in  the  soul  through  grace.2  But  this 
supernatural  operation  is  present  before  the  soul  is  conscious  of  it, 
and  the  natural  activity  of  the  soul  continues  even  when  the  super- 
natural has  come  to  dominate  the  field  of  consciousness. 

If  another  argument  be  desired  to  prove  the  gradual  develop- 
ment of  mystical  experience  out  of  the  hidden  working  of  sanctify- 
ing grace,  we  should  notice  that  Pere  Poulain,  indeed  the  entire 
school  of  modern  systematic  mystical  theology,  interpolates 
between  discursive  meditation  and  mystical  prayer  two  degrees 
of  natural  or  acquired  contemplation,  as  its  operation  is  increas- 
ingly unified  and  its  object  increasingly  general  and  obscure. 
These  are  termed  affective  prayer  and  the  prayer  of  simple  regard. 
Now,  as  Pere  Poulain  has  himself  clearly  demonstrated,  St  John’s 
Passive  Night  of  Sense  is  the  passage  to  the  lowest  form  of  positive 
mystical  prayer,  the  prayer  of  quiet,  and  indeed  the  first  be- 
ginning of  that  prayer.  But  St  John,  wdio  treats  of  this  night  in 
three  distinct  places,3  always  regards  it  as  the  passage  from  dis- 
cursive meditation,  which  it  supersedes  and  destroys.  Therefore, 
according  to  St  John,  the  night  of  sense  follows  meditation 
directly  and  thus  includes  in  some  way  or  other  the  acquired  con- 
templation of  affective  prayer  and  the  prayer  of  simple  regard. 
That  is  to  say,  St  John’s  mystical  prayer  or  infused  contempla- 

1 In  a sense  this  is  true  of  all  created  activity  in  its  relation  to  the  pure  Act  of 
the  Divine  Being.  Nevertheless  when  the  immediate  activity  is  terminated  wholly 
by  creatures  it  is  not  true  in  the  same  immediate  sense,  as  is  the  case  when  the  super- 
natural apprehension  of  God  is  the  immediate  object  of  a creature’s  activity. 

2 Faith  also,  of  course,  forbids  this  naturalism.  I am  giving  above  natural 
arguments  on  behalf  of  the  teaching  of  faith,  to  prove  the  necessity  of  a Divine 
operation  to  effect  mystical  contemplation.  Only  through  the  faith,  however, 
can  we  possess  absolute  certainty  that  this  Divine  action  through  grace  is  essenti- 
ally— that  is,  qualitatively — different  from  the  Divine  concurrence  requisite  for  the 
activity  of  all  creatures. 

3 Ascent,  Book  II.,  chaps,  xiii.,  xiv.  and  xv.  ; Dark  Night,  Book  I.  passim  ; 
Living  Flame,  st.  3. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  251 

tion  includes  the  two  stages  of  acquired  contemplation.  When  we 
read  St  Teresa’s  description  of  the  Prayer  of  Quiet,  as  given  in 
her  Autobiography,  we  are  struck  with  its  resemblance,  or  rather 
its  identity,  with  the  state  of  prayer  described  by  other  writers  as 
the  acquired  prayer  of  Simple  Regard.  Moreover,  St  John  himself 
treats  of  this  early  contemplation  as  at  once  acquired  and  infused. 
In  the  Second  Book  of  The  Ascent  St  John  regards  primarily 
the  active  or  acquired  aspect  of  contemplation,  whereas  in  the 
first  book  of  The  Dark  Night  its  passive  or  infused  aspect  is  treated. 
But  in  The  Ascent  he  discusses  both  aspects  conjointly.  In  chap, 
xiv.  (Book  II.)  he  speaks  of  the  general  knowledge  of  contemplation 
as  a continuous  habit  acquired  by  many  acts  of  discursive  medita- 
tion. “ Many  acts  of  this  loving  knowledge  ” (acts  of  discursive 
meditation)  “ ...  by  long  use  attain  such  a continuance  that  a 
habit  is  formed  in  the  soul  . . . by  the  soul’s  labour  of  meditation 
in  particular  acts  of  knowledge  . . . there  has  been  formed  in  it 
the  habit  and  substance  of  a general  loving  knowledge  ” — i.e.  con- 
templation. But  in  this  very  chapter  he  describes  this  general 
knowledge  as  a Divine  light  entering  the  soul,  and  tells  us  that  this 
light  places  the  soul  in  a species  of  oblivion  wherein  time  is  trans- 
cended. He  says  that  “ such  a soul  is  united  in  heavenly  know- 
ledge,” is  “ supematurally  raised  into  supernatural  knowledge.” 
“ This  supernatural  knowledge  of  contemplation  ” (chap.  xv). 
Further  in  this  fifteenth  chapter  St  John  insists  in  the  plain- 
est terms  on  the  passive  and  infused  character  of  :;his  con- 
templation. “ God  communicates  Himself  passively.  . . . This 
reception  of  the  light  that  is  supematurally  infused  is  a passive 
understanding. ’ ’ In  these  chapters,  therefore,  the  same  con- 
templation is  described  as  both  acquired  and  infused  ; as  acquired 
since  it  is  the  effect  of  operations  of  the  psychic  powers  under 
the  influence  of  grace  and  in  the  reception  of  grace ; infused  as 
being  a new,  higher  and  modally  different  operation  and  reception 
of  that  grace.  The  active  and  passive  elements  of  the  psychosis  are 
now  changing  their  mutual  proportion  and  perceptibility.  Hence 
this*  contemplation  may  be  rightly  regarded  either  as  acquired  or 
as  infused,  though  in  its  lower  degrees  it  is  predominantly  felt  and 
described  under  the  former  aspect,  in  its  higher  degrees  under  the 
latter.  In  this  wise,  as  meditation  fails,  its  task  accomplished, 
prayer,  as  its  operation  grows  ever  more  unified  and  its  object  an 
ever  more  general,  obscure  and  negative  apprehension  or  intuition 
of  God,  passes  gradually  and  imperceptibly,  without  the  introduc- 


252  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

tion  of  any  new  principle,  through  the  night  of  sense  into  the 
prayer  of  quiet,  from  a state  in  which  the  acquiring  work  of  the 
faculties  occupies  the  consciousness  of  the  soul  to  a state  in  which 
the  soul  is  predominantly  conscious  of  the  activity  of  God. 

When  first  the  soul  becomes  conscious  of  a supernatural  work- 
ing, that  working  is  felt  as  negative,  as  a force  that  constrains  the 
faculties  of  the  soul,  so  that  they  are  more  or  less  unable  to  pro- 
duce a multiplicity  of  diverse  acts  of  will,  of  sense  images  or  of 
distinct  concepts.  No  positive  working  is  yet  felt  in  understand- 
ing or  will  but  this  negative  constraint  alone,  which  demands  and 
supplements  the  active  detachment  of  the  soul  from  these  multiple 
and  distinct  activities.  For  this  active  detachment  is  required  if 
the  soul  is  to  correspond  to  the  passive  detachment  of  which  it  is 
now  conscious.  That  is  why  this  passive  night  of  sense  is  parti- 
ally conterminous  with  the  active  night  of  spirit  and  is  discussed 
from  that  point  of  view  in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  The 
limited  activities  of  the  discursive  reason  and  of  volitions  directed 
to  particular  ends  have  been  so  destroyed  by  grace-aided  detach- 
ment of  Avill  and  concentration  of  thought,  that  the  working  and, 
through  the  working,  the  presence  of  the  divine  Being,  especially 
immanent  in  the  soul,  is  manifested  in  consciousness  as  a powerful 
drawing  of  the  soul  away  from  the  limited  and  therefore  divided 
activities  of  multiple  will  acts  and  clear  concepts,  an  abstraction 
that  becomes  at  times  a total  inhibition  of  these  acts  and  concepts. 
The  soul  is,  however,  still  free  to  resist  this  negative  working, 
which  is,  moreover,  only  manifested  when  the  soul  is  in  actual 
prayer.  There  are,  as  I said  above,  three  passages  where  St  John 
describes  this  night  of  sense.  The  first  of  these  is  contained  in 
chaps,  xii.-xvi.  of  the  second  book  of  The  Ascent,  where  St 
John  gives  instructions  for  the  active  correspondence  of  the  soul 
with  the  negative  working  of  God.  The  central  discussion  is  the 
first  book  of  The  Dark  Night,  which  is  devoted  to  the  Passive  Night 
of  Sense.  A large  portion  of  this  book,  however,  is  occupied  with 
a description  of  the  spiritual  evils  of  which  this  night  is  the  sole 
cure,  forms  of  selfishness  which  this  night  removes,  limits  from 
which  this  night  alone  can  release  the  soul,  so  that  it  may  go  forth 
to  the  Unlimited  Reality  that  is  its  God.  The  third  passage  is  to 
be  found  in  the  third,  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame,  where  the  saint 
makes  a long  digression  on  the  emptying  of  the  faculties  of  distinct 
and  therefore  created  objects,  and  takes  occasion  to  rebuke 
directors  who  hinder  the  soul  from  following  the  Divine  attraction 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  253 

to  mystical  prayer.  This  night  he  calls  the  night  of  sense,  because 
its  primary  effect  is  to  free  the  spii'it  from  bondage  to  its  lower 
operations,  which  proceed  from  sense  data  and  are  conversant 
with  particular  objects  at  least  ultimately  sensible.  So  long  as 
the  soul  is  held  fast  in  these  activities  it  cannot  turn  inwards  to  the 
central  spiritual  operations  and  powers  in  which  God  manifests 
Himself  to  it.  The  destruction  of  these  sense-caused  limitations 
is  thus  called  by  St  John  the  subjugation  of  sense  to  spirit,  and  its 
supernatural  accomplishment  the  night  of  sense. 

In  The  Dark  Night  St  John  prefaces  his  discussion  of  the  night 
of  sense  by  an  account  of  the  faults  that  are  to  be  purged  by  it. 
These  he  reduces  under  seven  heads,  which  he  terms  the  seven 
spiritual  capital  vices  (deadly  sins,  as  they  are  popularly  but  in- 
accurately termed),  which  are  analogous  to,  in  fact  extensions  of, 
the  seven  capital  vices  as  ordinarily  understood.  In  his  treatment 
of  these  St  John’s  genius  for  descriptive  psychology  finds  full  play. 
As  an  example  of  this  I will  quote  certain  traits  from  his  portrait 
of  spiritual  pride.  “ When  beginners,”  he  says — by  beginners  he 
means  all  who  have  not  yet  reached  the  night  of  sense — “ become 
aware  of  their  own  fervour  and  diligence  in  their  spiritual  works 
and  devotional  exercises,  this  prosperity  of  theirs  gives  rise  to 
secret  pride  . . . because  of  their  imperfection  ; and  the  issue  is 
that  they  conceive  a certain  satisfaction  in  the  contemplation  of 
their  works  and  of  themselves.  From  the  same  source,  too,  pro- 
ceeds that  somewhat  vain,  at  times  entirely  vain,  eagerness  to 
speak  before  others  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  sometimes  as  teachers 
rather  than  learners.  They  condemn  others  in  their  hearts  when 
they  see  that  they  are  not  devout  in  their  way.  Sometimes  also 
they  say  it  in  words.  . . . Some  of  them  go  so  far  that  they  will 
have  none  good  but  themselves,  and  so  at  all  times,  both  in  word 
and  deed,  fall  into  condemnation  and  detraction  of  others.  . . . 
Sometimes,  also,  when  their  spiritual  masters,  such  as  confessors 
and  superiors,  do  not  approve  of  their  spirit  and  conduct  . . . 
they  decide  that  they  are  not  understood,  and  that  their  superiors 
are  not  spiritual  men  because  they  do  not  approve  and  sanction 
their  proceedings.  So  they  go  about  in  quest  of  someone  else,  who 
will  accommodate  himself  to  their  pleasure,  for  in  general  they 
love  to  discuss  their  spiritual  state  with  those  who,  they  think,  will 
commend  and  respect  it.  They  avoid,  as  they  would  death,  those 
who  destroy  their  delusion  with  the  view  of  leading  them  into  a 
safe  way,  and  sometimes  they  even  hate  them.  Presuming  greatly 


254  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  themselves,  they  make  many  resolutions  and  accomplish  little. 
They  are  occasionally  desirous  that  others  should  perceive  their 
spirituality  and  devotion,  and  for  that  end  they  give  outward  tokens 
by  movements,  sighs  and  divers  ceremonies. . . . Many  of  them  seek 
to  be  favourites  of  their  confessors  ; the  result  is  endless  envy  and 
disquietude.  They  are  ashamed  to  confess  their  sins  plainly,  lest 
their  confessors  should  think  less  of  them,  so  they  go  about  palliat- 
ing them,  that  they  may  not  seem  so  bad.  . . . Sometimes  they  go 
to  a stranger  to  confess  their  sins,  that  their  usual  confessor  may 
think  they  are  not  sinners,  but  good  people.  And  so  they  always 
take  pleasure  in  telling  him  of  their  goodness,  and  that  in  terms 
suggestive  of  more  than  is  in  them  : at  the  least,  they  wish  all 
their  goodness  to  be  appreciated  ” ( D.N. , Bk.  I.  ii).  The  mystic 
is  a realist,  not  only  in  his  knowledge  of  God,  but  of  man.  Though 
he  realises  as  none  else  the  greatness  of  the  human  soul,  no  psycho- 
logical novelist  possesses  clearer  vision  of  its  foibles  and  pettiness. 

It  may  be  urged  that  spiritual  pride  is  a sin  that  concerns  the 
depths  of  the  soul  rather  than  the  relation  of  sense  to  spirit  and  is 
not,  therefore,  fit  subject  matter  for  the  night  of  sense.  But  this 
piide,  in  the  form  described  above,  largely  consists  in  petty  con- 
ceits and  vanities  that  are  concerned  rather  with  the  soul’s  external 
life  than  its  inmost  substance.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  passive 
night  of  sense  is  ordained  to  purge  the  seven  spiritual  vices  proves 
that  its  proper  subject  matter  is  not  the  most  external,  peripheral 
and  carnal  sins,  which  require  no  mystical  purgation,  since  they 
must  be  purged  as  a precedent  condition  to  any  degree  whatever 
of  mystical  prayer,  but  the  sins  which  take  their  rise  in  the  more 
external  and  sensible  aspects  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  are  therefore 
intermediate  between  the  former  sins  and  the  central  selfishness 
of  the  ego  as  a distinct  individual  which  can  only  be  purged  by 
the  more  interior  night  of  the  spirit.  The  other  spiritual  vices  are 
spiritual  avarice,  love  of  many  and  valuable  objets  deplete,  spiritual 
luxury,  impure  motions  of  the  flesh,  resulting  from  sensible  sweet- 
ness in  devotion,  anger,  the  nervous  reaction  after  the  excitement 
of  spiritual  sweetness  has  passed,  which  is  sinful  in  so  far  as  it  is 
yielded  to  by  the  will,  and  also  an  unquiet  and  impatient  zeal 
against  one’s  own  faults,  or  those  of  others,  spiritual  gluttony,  the 
desire  for  sensible  sweetness  in  devotion  for  its  own  sake,  envy — 
that  is,  jealousy — of  the  spiritual  progress  of  others,  and  spiritual 
sloth,  which  shirks  and  omits  spiritual  exercises  when  they  cease 
to  afford  sensible  consolation. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  255 

With  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  The  Dark  Night 
St  John  comes  to  the  night  of  sense  itself.  He  first  notes  that  this 
night  is  of  common  occurrence  and  has  therefore  been  described 
in  many  spiritual  treatises.  This  statement  is  the  disproof  of 
Pere  Poulain’s  contention  that  St  John  was  the  first  to  discuss  the 
night  of  sense.1 

The  first  and  most  striking  characteristic  of  the  night  of  sense 
is  the  withdrawal  of  all  sensible  sweetness  in  devotion,  which  is 
replaced  by  aridity.  This  aridity  extends  to  a positive  incapacity 
for  meditation.  “ God  leaves  them  in  darkness  so  great  that  they 
know  not  whither  to  betake  themselves  with  their  sensible  im- 
aginations and  reflections.  They  cannot  advance  a single  step  in 
medication  as  before,  the  inward  sense  now  being  overwhelmed  in 
this  night  and  abandoned  to  dryness  so  great  that  they  have  no 
more  pleasure  or  sweetness  in  spiritual  things  and  exercises  as 
they  had  before,  and  in  their  place  they  find  nothing  but  insipidity 
and  bitterness  ” (chap.  viii).  Such  aridity  and  incapacity,  how- 
ever, may  also  be  caused  by  ill  health  or  lukewarmness.  St  John 
therefore  gives  certain  criteria  by  which  the  presence  of  this 
purgative  aridity  may  be  detected.  “ The  first  is  this  : when  we 
find  no  pleasure  or  comfort  in  the  things  of  God,  and  none  also  in 
created  things.”  The  second  test  and  condition  necessary  for 
belief  that  we  are  in  this  purgation  is  that  “ the  memory  dwells 
ordinarily  upon  God  with  a painful  anxiety  and  carefulness,  the 
soul  thinks  it  is  not  serving  God,  but  going  backwards,  because  it  is 
no  longer  conscious  of  any  sweetness  in  the  things  of  God.  In  this 
aridity,  though  the  sensual  part  of  man  be  grea  ly  depressed,  weak 
and  sluggish  in  good  works,  by  reason  of  the  little  satisfaction 
they  furnish,  the  spirit  is,  nevertheless,  ready  and  strong.”  This 
test  excludes  not  only  lukewarmness,  but  ‘‘rneie  ill  health,  for  the 
latter  has  no  tendency  in  itself  to  cause  this  seeking  of  the  will 
after  God.”  St  John  says  mere  ill  health,  because  God  may  often 
use  ill  health  as  a means  to  this  purgation.  “ The  third  sign  . . . 
is  inability  to  meditate  and  make  reflections  and  to  excite  the 
imagination  as  before,  notwithstanding  all  the  efforts  we  may 
make  ; for  God  begins  now  to  communicate  Himself,  no  longer 
through  the  channel  of  sense  ...  in  consecutive  reflections  . . . 
but  in  pure  spirit,  which  admits  not  of  successive  reflections,  and 

1 If  a good  modern  treatment  of  this  night  be  desired,  it  will  be  found  in  Dom 
Lehodey’s  excellent  Voies  d’Oraison  Mentale.  A translation  is  published  by 
Gill,  Dublin,  The  Ways  of  Mental  Prayer  (1917). 


256  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  the  act  of  pure  contemplation,  to  which  neither  the  interior  nor 
the  exterior  senses  of  our  lower  nature  can  ascend.”  St  John 
enters  deeper  into  the  cause  of  the  above-mentioned  aridity. 
“ The  cause  of  this  dryness  is  that  God  is  transforming  into  spirit 
the  goods  and  energies  of  the  senses,  and  since  the  natural  senses 
and  operation  are  incapable  of  spiritual  things,  they  are  left  dry, 
parched  up  and  empty  ; for  the  sensual  nature  of  man  is  helpless 
in  those  things  which  are  purely  spiritual.  Thus,  since  the  spirit 
has  been  tasted,  the  flesh  becomes  weak  and  remiss  ; but  the  spirit, 
having  received  its  proper  nourishment,  becomes  strong,  more 
vigilant  and  careful  than  before,  lest  there  should  be  any  negligence 
in  serving  God.  At  fii\st> it  is  not  conscious  of  any  spiritual  sweet- 
ness and  delight,  but  rather  of  aridities  and  distaste  because  of  the 
novelty  of  the  change.  . . . Because  the  spiritual  palate  is  not 
prepared  and  purified  for  so  delicious  a taste  until  it  shall  have 
been  gradually  disposed  for  it  in  this  arid  and  dark  night,  if 
cannot  taste  of  the  spiritual  good  and  pleasure,  but  rather  of 
aridity  and  distaste,  because  it  misses  that  pleasure  which  it 
enjoyed  so  easily  before.  . . . The  spirit,  though  at  first  without 
any  sweetness  ...  is  conscious  of  strength  and  energy  to  act 
because  of  the  substantial  natuie  of  its  interior  food,  which  is  the 
commencement  of  contemplation  dim  and  dry  to  the  senses.  This 
contemplation  is  secret  and  unknown  to  him  who  is  admitted  into 
it,  and  with  the  aridity  and  emptiness  which  it  produces  in  the 
senses  it  usually  makes  the  soul  long  for  solitude  and  quiet,  with- 
out the  power  of  reflecting  on  anything  distinctly  or  even  desiring 
to  do  so.  . . . This  contemplation  is  so  delicate  that,  in  general, 
it  eludes  our  perception  if  we  have  any  special  desire  or  anxiety  to 
feel  it,  for  ...  it  does  its  work  when  the  soul  is  most  tranquil 
and  free  from  care  ; it  is  like  the  air  which  vanishes  when  we  close 
our  hands  to  grasp  it  ” (chap.  ix). 

The  meaning  of  this  difficult  passage  seems  to  be  this : God 
now  begins  to  infuse  into  the  understanding  or  spiritual  con- 
sciousness a veiled  intuition  of  Himself,  as  the  transcendent  Being 
present  in  the  soul.1  This  intuition  is  at  first  so  faint  that  it  is  not 
directly  perceptible.  It  draws,  however,  the  activity  of  the  soul 

1 In  the  earlier  stages  of  mystical  experience  the  intuition  is  so  dim  as  to  lend 
support  to  those  who  maintain  that  it  is  rather  a negative  idea  of  God  super- 
naturally  impressed,  than  an  intuition  of  His  present  Being.  This  explanation 
is  certainly  inadequate  to  the  higher  stages.  It  is  surely  an  error  to  postulate 
without  necessity  any  break  of  continuity  in  the  development  of  mystical 
experience. 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  257 

from  the  peripheral  energies,  conversant  with  sensible  data,  to 
the  central  and  more  spiritual  functions,  which  by  reason  of  their 
greater  spirituality,  and  therefore  reality,  are  in  closer  relation  to 
God,  and  the  immediate  subject  of  sanctifying  grace,  and  to  and 
in  which  through  that  grace  He  is  especially  present  in  His  special 
operation  which  is  Himself.  The  result  of  this  introversion  is 
that  the  soul,  particularly  when  most  exposed  to  the  Divine  action 
— namely,  in  prayer — finds  its  peripheral  activities,  such  as  the 
formation  of  images  and  distinct  concepts,  impeded  if  not  wholly 
inhibited.  It  is  left  with  one  simple  and  interior  energising 
through  the  will  towards  the  Divine  intuition  which  attracts  it. 
Since,  however,  that  intuition  is  still  so  weak  as  to  be  entirely  or 
almost  entirely  imperceptible,  the  soul  finds  little  or  no  satisfac- 
tion in  it  and  misses  its  former  meditations  and  sensible  sweetness. 
Meanwhile  its  release  is  being  effected  from  the  limited  external 
activities  which  hitherto  were  barriers  against  God,  and  against  the 
more  spiritual  central  activities  in  and  through  which  it  is  being 
brought  into  closer  and  more  immediate  relationship  with  God. 
The  spiritual  faults  also  which  are  rooted  in  these  limited  activities 
are  being  purged  away  through  the  destruction  of  their  ground. 
It  is,  however,  possible  for  the  soul  to  resist  this  Divine  working 
by  a vain  struggle  to  continue  meditation.  , Indeed  many 
directors  ignorant  of  mystical  theology  forced  their  penitents  to 
do  this.  Against  such  is  directed  St  John’s  impassioned  diatribe 
in  The  Living  Flame.  His  indignation  is  the  greater  because  he 
regards  any  hindrance  occasioned  to  the  mystical  union  of  a soul 
called  to  that  union  by  God  “as  a greater  hurt,  grief  and  stain 
than  the  troubling  or  even  the  loss  of  many  souls  of  the  common 
type.”  “ It  is  as  though  a portrait  of  most  excellent  and  delicate 
painting  were  daubed  by  a coarse  hand  with  ugly  and  coarse 
colours.  The  damage  thus  inflicted  would  be  greater  and  more 
notable  and  more  lamentable  than  would  be  the  entire  oblitera- 
tion of  many  portraits  of  indifferent  execution.”  This  spiritual 
aristocracy  parallels  the  intellectual  and  moral  aristocracy 
preached  with  such  ardour  and  convincing  logic  by  Ibsen  in  The 
Enemy  of  the  People,  and  is  the  counterpart  and  fulfilment  of 
Nietzsche’s  natural  aristocracy  of  supermen.  It  is,  however,  in 
full  accord  with  the  universal  order  of  nature,  according  to  which 
innumerable  hosts  of  inferior  species  subserve  a few,:  indeed, 
ultimately,  one  supreme  species,  and  of  human  society  where  a 
very  small  minority  of  gifted  souls  stand  out  above  the  vast 

R 


258  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

multitude  of  the  commonplace  and  the  average.  It  is  also  in 
accord  with  the  theological  principle  that  it  was  the  peculiar 
elevation  of  Our  Lord’s  sacred  Humanity  that  lent  infinite  value 
to  His  most  trifling  action,  and  with  the  well-grounded  opinion 
that  Our  Lord  was  incarnate  and  died,  more  for  the  sake  of  His 
immaculate  Mother  than  of  all  the  rest  of  humanity  together. 
This  spiritual  aristocracy  in  St  John  intensifies  his  wrath  against 
directors  who  seek  to  detain  these  choice  souls  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  discursive  meditation,  and  makes  him  all  the  more  eager 
with  instructions  to  souls  in  this  night  of  sense  to  follow  instead  of 
impeding  the  Divine  attraction.  He  is  urgent  with  these  souls 
to  cease  vain  attempts  to  meditate.  To  attempt  meditation  is  a 
useless  weariness  in  which  the  soul  can  find  no  satisfaction.  All 
the  good  that  can  be  obtained  from  such  meditation — that  is,  all 
the  knowledge  and  love  of  God  to  be  extracted  from  this  exercise — 
has  been  already  obtained.  Otherwise  this  night  would  not  have 
come  on.  All  the  positive  being — that  is,  all  the  participation  of 
God — contained  in  its  reasonings  and  images  has  been  assimilated 
by  the  soul,  and  now  only  their  essential  limitations,  the  external 
husks,  remain,  spiritually  indigestible,  because  simply  negative 
of  fuller  reality.  Henceforward  these  images  and  concepts  can 
but  hold  the  soul  back  in  its  prayer  by  their  limits,  when  it  is  being 
drawn  inwards  to  a more  unlimited  participation  of  ultimate  reality 
by  a closer  and  more  immediate  union  with  God.  To  redigest 
food  already  digested,  to  retrace  a journey  when  the  goal  has  been 
reached,  are  images  of  the  folly  of  the  attempt  to  return  to  dis- 
cursive meditation  when  the  time  for  it  has  passed  by.  Those 
who  act  thus,  says  St  John,  are  “ like  a man  who  does  his  work 
over  again,  or  who  goes  out  of  a city  that  he  may  enter  it  once 
more,  or  who  lets  go  what  he  has  caught  in  hunting  that  he  may 
hunt  it  again.  Their  labour  is  in  vain  : for  they  will  find  nothing  ” 
(O.N.,  i.  10). 

Such  souls,  therefore,  must  replace  meditation  by  a courageous 
and  patient  self-abandonment  to  the  Divine  operation.  They 
must  cease  to  attempt  in  prayer  the  active  use  of  their  faculties 
and  must  passively  receive  the  contemplation  which  God  is  infus- 
ing. “ Let  these  souls,”  says  St  John,  “ be  quiet  and  at  rest.  . . . 
They  will  do  enough  if  they  keep  patience  and  persevere  in  prayer, 
doing  nothing  therein  ; all  they  have  to  do  is  to  keep  their  soul 
free,  unembarrassed  and  at  rest  from  all  thoughts  and  all  know- 
ledge . . . contenting  themselves  simply  with  a loving  and  calm 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  259 

attention  to  God  ” ( O.N. , i.  10).  It  is  true  that  this  attentive 
receptivity  itself  involves  a fuller  and  intenser  action.  That 
action,  however,  is  no  longer  a conscious  effort  of  reasoning  and 
imagination,  but  a unified,  simple  and  therefore  imperceptible 
attention  to  God  and  reception  of  His  Action.  If  the  soul  perse- 
veres in  this  attitude  of  patient  receptivity,  the  intuition  of  the 
Divine  Presence  emerges  by  degrees  more  clearly  into  conscious- 
ness. “ If  they,”  says  St  John,  “ who  are  in  this  state  knew  how 
to  be  quiet,  to  disregard  every  interior  and  exterior  work  without 
solicitude  to  do  anything,  they  would  have  in  this  tranquillity  and 
freedom  from  care  a most  delicious  sense  of  this  interior  refection  ” 
— i.e.  the  obscure  intuition  of  the  transcendent  Being  of  God 
present  in  the  soul.  This  intuition  is  apparently  at  first  felt 
simply  as  an  interior  peace  or  tranquillity.  To  strive  to  fix  the 
thought  on  any  distinct  concept  or  image  disturbs  this  delicate 
peace.  For  it  is,  as  we  saw,  to  exclude  the  fulness  of  the  pure  and 
spiritual  Divine  communication,  by  the  limits  of  distinct  notions 
and  sensible  images,  or  rather  of  vain  attempts  to  achieve  them 
and  to  destroy  its  unity  by  the  distraction  of  these  mutually 
exclusive  particular  objects.  The  nature  of  this  infused  contem- 
plation is  further  explained  in  The  Living  Flame.  “ In  the  con- 
templation of  which  we  are  speaking,  by  means  of  which  God  is 
infusing  Himself  into  the  soul,  there  is  no  need  of  any  distinct  con- 
cept nor  for  acts  of  understanding  made  by  the  soul.  In  one 
simple  act  God  is  communicating  light  and  love  together  to  the 
soul — namely,  a supernatural,  loving  knowledge,  which  we  may 
call  a warming  light,  for  this  light  gives  out  the  heat  of  love.  This 
knowledge  is  confused  and  obscure  to  the  understanding  because 
it  is  a contemplation,  and  contemplation  is  (as  St  Dionysius  tells 
us)  a ray  of  darkness  to  the  understanding.  The  result  is  that  the 
love  in  the  will  corresponds  in  its  manner  to  the  knowledge  in 
the  understanding.  For  as  the  knowledge  infused  by  God  into  the 
understanding  is  general  and  obscure  without  any  distinct  know- 
ledge, so  also  does  the  will  love  generally  without  distinction  of 
any  particular  object  apprehended.”  “ At  times  in  this  subtle 
communication  God  communicates  Himself  to  one  faculty  more 
than  to  another,  striking  that  faculty  with  greater  force,  for  at 
times  more  knowledge  is  felt  than  love,  and  at  other  times  more 
love  than  knowledge  ; at  times  it  is  all  knowledge  and  no  love, 
at  others  all  love  and  no  knowledge  ” ( Living  Flame,  iii.  10).  We 
should  gather,  however,  from  the  concluding  chapter  of  The 


260  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Obscure  Knowledge  that  the  union  of  the  will,  rather  than  the 
union  of  the  understanding,  is  primary  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
mystical  prayer.  To  obtain  without  personal  experience  an  idea 
of  the  nature  of  this  mystical  intuition  is  impossible.  As  soon 
might  a blind  man  obtain  an  idea  of  colour.  It  is  a peaceful  and 
loving  intuition  or  sense  of  a Presence  within  the  soul,  the  Presence 
of  a Being  that  is  not  created  being  of  any  kind,  the  transcendent 
and  Absolute  Godhead.  It  is  the  intuition  of  the  veiled  presence 
of  a Reality  altogether  unlike,  wholly  transcendent  of  the  world  of 
creatures,  a Reality  by  comparison  with  which  that  world  is  felt 
to  be  unsubstantial  and  unreal.  But,  after  all,  to  say  this  is  but  to 
give  an  indication  of  an  experience  essentially  incommunicable. 

All  this  while  we  have  gradually  passed  out  of  the  night  of 
sense  and  have  emerged  into  the  dim  dawn  of  positive  mystical 
experience.  We  are  now  discussing  a state  of  conscious  union 
with  God,  a union  whose  immediate  term  is  no  longer  a creature, 
but  the  Godhead.  In  this  union  God  is  present  to  the  soul  as  a 
lover  to  the  beloved  in  a room  that  is  completely  dark.  His 
presence  is  felt,  but  He  is  altogether  invisible.  As  the  mystical 
union  progresses  the  Divine  presence  draws  closer  and  closer,  but 
the  darkness  is  not  dispelled.  It  is  as  though  the  lover,  first  felt 
as  present  at  a distance,  had  drawn  near  and  had  enfolded  the 
beloved  in  a close  embrace.  But  his  face  is  bidden  to  the  end. 

The  world  experienced  in  mystical  prayer  is  a new  and  a 
strange  universe.  Souls  who  have  entered  it,  even  in  the  very 
transitory  and  very  feeble  contacts  of  the  earliest  stages  of  mystical 
prayer,  are  like  beings  who  have  come  up  to  the  surface  of  the 
sea  from  the  submarine  depths.  Down  in  those  depths  is  a 
faint  greenish  light,  through  which  loom  the  weird,  indistinct 
shapes  of  uncouth  fish  or  of  those  more  grotesque  sea-monsters 
that  appal  us  in  aquaria  with  their  fearsome  ugliness.  Bunches 
of  matted  and  formless  seaweed  cling  to  the  chilly  rocks.  When 
first  the  daring  inhabitant  of  the  sea-floor  emerges  from  the  water 
it  enters  a new  world.  The  sun  burns  overhead  and  fills  the  air 
with  heat  and  radiance.  Above  the  sapphire  expanse  of  sea 
flashing  and  shimmering  with  gold  and  jewels  of  sunlight  there 
stretches  a vast  canopy  of  softer,  clearer  blue,  that  is  bounded  only 
by  the  wide  circle  of  a horizon  girdled  by  snow-white  masses  of 
cloud,  as  by  a chain  of  distant  Alps.  But  the  new-comer,  dazzled 
and  bewildered,  has  to  replunge  speedily  into  the  congenial  gloom 
of  its  native  home.  It  cannot  see  clearly  the  magnificent  scene 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  261 

before  it,  for  its  organs  are  adapted  to  submarine  life.  It  has 
therefore  but  a general  confused  and  obscure  consciousness  of 
light  and  air.  Not  unless  its  organs  were  transformed  and  its 
abode  in  the  upper  world  made  permanent  could  that  submarine 
being  distinctly  perceive  and  fitly  handle  its  new  environment. 
Man’s  soul,  however,  is  in  its  central  being  made  for  the  upper 
world  of  eternity,  where  God  is  the  sun,  and  where  the  horizon 
is  never  reached.  Into  this  eternity  the  soul  now  begins  to  enter. 
As  the  mystical  union  progresses,  the  soul’s  visits  to  the  sphere 
of  its  eternal  life  become  more  frequent  and  more  prolonged, 
until  finally  the  centre  abides  habitually  in  this  Divine  world  of 
Reality  and  truth.  But  not  until  its  faculties  have  been  wholly 
adapted  to  its  environment,  which  cannot  be  till  their  bodily 
energising  has  been  destroyed  by  death,  will  the  soul  be  able  to 
dwell  with  its  whole  self  and  without  intermission  in  the  eternal 
life,  which  is  union  with  God,  nor  until  that  day  will  it  see  clearly 
a Reality  which  in  this  mortal  life  can  but  be  felt  as  a dazzling  light 
destroying  by  its  impenetrable  brilliance  all  distinct  vision.  Or 
to  vary  the  image,  the  divine  Sun  in  respect  for  the  feebleness  of 
mortal  sight  is  hidden  behind  the  soul’s  negative  knowledge  of 
its  unintelligible  transcendence.  From  behind  this  darkness  rays 
of  Divine  truth  and  love  are  shed  on  the  soul,  even  as  we  see  at 
times  the  surface  of  the  sea  ruddy  with  light  that  issues  from 
behind  a black  cloud. 

St  Teresa  in  her  description  of  the  prayer  of  quiet  (Auto- 
biography, chap,  xiv.)  makes  it  consist  primarily  in  the  love-union 
of  the  will.  “ The  will  alone  is  occupied  in  such  a way  that 
without  knowing  how  it  has  become  a captive.  It  gives  a simple 
consent  to  become  the  prisoner  of  God.”  “ The  memory  and  the 
understanding  come  and  go  seeking  whether  the  will  is  going  to  give 
them  that  into  the  fruition  of  which  it  has  entered  itself.”  Never- 
theless we  read  a few  lines  farther  down  that  “ the  understanding 
is  now  working  very  gently  and  is  drawing  more  water  than  it 
drew  out  of  the  well,”  and  she  adds  that  “ some  little  knowledge 
of  the  blissfulness  of  glory  is  communicated  ” to  the  soul.  She 
further  explains  this  knowledge  to  be  a consciousness  of  the 
Presence  of  God  in  the  soul.  “ This  satisfaction,”  she  says,  “ lies 
in  the  innermost  part  of  the  soul,  and  the  soul  knows  not  whence 
nor  how  it  came  ; very  often  it  knows  not  what  to  do,  or 
wish,  or  pray  for.”  It  is  evident  that  St  Teresa  is  speaking  of 
approximately  the  same  state  of  prayer  as  that  into  which  St  John 


262  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

lias  led  us  through  the  night  of  sense.  The  next  stage  discussed  by 
St  Teresa,  the  prayer  of  union  or  full  union,  is  hut  a completion 
and  accentuation  of  this  prayer  of  quiet  in  which  the  entire  soul 
is  dominated  and  constrained  by  the  mystical  union. 

It  will  be  well  to  call  here  to  mind  what  was  said  earlier  of  the 
inmost  ground  of  the  soul  (see  Chapter  V). 

This  is  the  central  substance  or  ego  into  which  plunge  or 
from  which  proceed  two  channels,  the  cognitive  faculty,  or  the 
understanding,  as  I should  prefer  to  say,  the  spiritual  consciousness 
and  the  conative  faculty  that  is  the  will.  These  functions  are, 
however,  in  reality  but  aspects  of  the  central  ego.  Since  the 
latter  reaches  deeper  than  the  former,  the  central  substance  is,  we 
saw,  often  termed  the  apex  of  the  will.  In  these  earlier  stages  of 
mystical  prayer  the  limiting  barriers  of  the  natural  activities  of 
the  sold  have  so  far  been  broken  down  that  the  divine  Being 
present  in  the  soul  both  by  omnipresence  and  in  virtue  of  the  soul’s 
special  relationship  through  sanctifying  grace — a relationship  now 
far  more  intimate — is  manifested  from  time  to  time  in  the  depths 
of  the  soul.  The  Divine  manifestation  takes  as  it  were  a transient 
possession  of  the  centre,  and  thence  as  the  possession  grows 
stronger  this  Divine  manifestation  pours  out  through  the  two 
channels  of  will  and  understanding  or  spiritual  consciousness. 
Nevertheless  in  all  these  earlier  stages  previous  to  the  night  of 
spirit  the  manifestation  is  only  transient  and  the  Divine  posses- 
sion of  the  soul  is  so  to  speak  an  external  grasp.  The  central 
barrier  remains  intact — namely,  the  independent  selfhood  or  self- 
centredness which  imprisons  the  soul  life  in  its  essentially  limited 
selfness — now  indeed  almost  wholly  subordinated  to  God  the  All, 
but  not  yet  destroyed,  that  He  may  be  all  in  all.  The  activities 
of  the  soul  are  still  fundamentally  rooted  in  self,  not  in  God. 
That  is  why  the  Divine  action  can  be  as  yet  but  transient  in  its 
manifestation  and  in  a certain  sense  external.  These  manifesta- 
tions of  God  in  the  soul  become  indeed  ever  more  powerful. 
When  the  state  known  as  ecstasy  is  reached  the  will  is  seized  by 
the  fire  of  God’s  love,  and  through  this  violent  inflammation  of 
the  will  the  soul  is  so  possessed  by  God  that  it  can  no  longer  duly 
perform  its  peripheral  functions  through  the  bodily  senses.  These 
fail  during  the  ecstasy,  and  thus  arises  that  state  of  bodily  trance 
which  is  the  subject  of  such  admiration  to  the  crowd,  until  indeed 
it  is  realised  that  this  outward  phenomenon  can  be  produced  by 
other  and  more  material  causes.  Of  all  this  St  John  says  very 


MYSTICAL  EXPERIENCE  263 

little.  He  is  too  intent  on  the  goal  of  the  mystical  way  to  linger 
over  these  intermediate  stages.  It  is,  however,  to  this  stage  of 
ecstasy  that  we  should  especially  apply  certain  passages  in  which 
St  John  speaks  of  Divine  touches.  Sometimes  indeed  these  touches 
are  acts  of  that  supreme  habitual  union  called  mystical  marriage. 
There  are,  however,  others  which  belong  to  earlier  stages.  These 
Divine  touches  are  primarily  in  the  will — where  the  will  touches 
God  as  the  present  Object  of  an  infused  love,  in  which  His  Presence 
is  apprehended.  If  the  intuition  of  the  understanding  at  an  earlier 
stage  is  fitly  represented  by  the  sense  of  the  lover’s  presence  in  a 
dark  room,  this  touch  is  like  a grasp  in  the  darkness  of  his  garment 
or  hand.  Mother  Cecilia  speaks  of  these  touches  in  the  opening 
pages  of  her  treatise  on  The  Union  of  the  Soul  with  God.  “ The 
soul  now  feels  in  itself  the  loving,  Divine  touch.”  I think,  more- 
over, that  we  should  also  refer  to  ecstasy  St  John’s  description  in 
the  second  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame  of  the  wound  of  love,  in 
which  the  soul  seems  pierced  by  a fiery  dart,  and  of  which  St 
Teresa’s  external  wounding  by  the  Seraph  was  a physical  mani- 
festation. This,  however,  is  rather  a concomitant  phenomenon 
than  an  essential  constituent  of  ecstasy.  An  ecstasy — does  not 
the  very  name  call  up  the  thought  of  a union  with  God  of  un- 
thinkable elevation  and  intimacy  ? 1 Yet  it  is  not  the  highest 
union  possible  on  earth,  though  doubtless  the  highest  reached  by 
the  majority  of  mystics.  A more  fundamental  transformation  has 
still  to  be  effected,  a far  closer  union  contracted.  As  a night  of 
passive  purgation  was  the  entrance  to  these  lower  degrees,  these 
transitory  and  more  external  states  of  union-intuition,  so  also 
another  and  a far  more  terrible  purgation  is  the  entrance  to  the 
supreme  union  permanent  and  most  intimate.  Only  the  soul 
that  is  wholly  dead  to  self,  to  the  natural  life  centring  round  self 
and  conditioned  by  the  limited  activities  proper  to  a creature, 
can  obtain  the  fulness  of  life  unlimited,  which  is  a participation 
of  the  life  of  God  Himself,  the  life  in  which  “ I live  no  more  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me.’7  We  have  reached  thus  the  night  of  spirit. 


1 Its  literal  meaning  is  a being  (standing)  out  of  oneself. 


CHAPTER  X 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT 

Cum  Christo  confixus  sum  cruci. 

Anima  crucifixa,  mortua,  et  sepulta. 

The  ordinary  Christian  no  doubt  imagines  that  the  sole  evil  from 
which  the  soul  must  be  purged  before  it  is  fit  to  enter  heaven  is 
that  evil  because  God-resisting  and  therefore  deordinate  will  which 
constitutes  sin.  For  him  the  destruction  of  self  means  merely 
the  eradication  of  selfishness  in  the  popular  sense  of  the  term. 
For  the  Buddhist  and  the  pantheist,  on  the  other  hand,  the  destruc- 
tion of  self  means  the  annihilation  of  the  individual,  or  rather  of 
the  connected  sequence  of  psychoses  constitutive  of  the  soul  or 
ego.1  The  pantheist  may  indeed  say  that  the  ego  will  be  absorbed 
in  the  All  or  the  Absolute — but  by  this  he  means  that  its  individual 
separate  being  will  cease  and  in  some  unintelligible  way  its  content 
will  pass  into  the  Absolute,  because  the  individual  self  was  always 
illusory,  a transient  mode  of  one  underlying  reality.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  true  conception  of  the  destruction  of  the  self  lies 
between  these  two  extremes,  here  as  always  a via  media.  That 
which  is  destroyed  is  more  than  such  volition  as  is  actually  sinful, 
and  less  than  the  substance  of  the  soul,  the  individual  ego.  It 
is  rather  the  natural  life  of  the  soul  that  is  destroyed,  its  present 
mode  of  action,  the  activity  that  proceeds  from  the  self  as  in- 
dependent of  God,  and  which  is  therefore  limited  by  the  limita- 
tions inherent  in  all  created  activity.  To  describe  in  full  the 
transformation  of  the  soul  into  God,  such  as  I understand  it  from 
the  writings  of  mystics,  would  be  to  anticipate  my  account  of  the 
goal  of  the  mystic  way.  This  much,  however,  I must  try  to  make 
clear.  The  self  as  an  independent  centre  and  source  2 of  psychical 

1 For  the  Buddhist  there  is,  strictly  speaking,  no  self,  but  either  a chain  of 
interlinked  phenomena,  or  mere  illusion  veiling  either  nothingness  or  un- 
differentiated thought  without  subject  or  object  (see  Vallee  Pousin,  LeBuddhisme, 
passim). 

2 Of  course  this  independence  was  never  more  than  relative. 


264 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  265 

life  must  be  destroyed,  and  must  be  replaced  by  a self  that  is  a 
receptacle  of  the  Divine  life  and  activity.  One  and  the  same 
individual  soul  substance  endures  throughout  the  process,  for 
this  created  substance,  as  such  infinitely  distant  from  the  uncreated 
Being  that  is  Absolute  or  Pure  Being,  could  never  become  part  of 
that  Being,  and  if  it  were  annihilated  there  would  be  no  subject 
of  the  Divine  Presence  and  Operation.  Nor,  again,  is  the  activity 
of  the  created  soul  destroyed,  for  this  activity  is  inseparable 
from  the  being  which  is  its  ground.  It  is,  however,  destroyed,  as 
independent  of  the  Divine  action,  and  is  changed  into  a reception 
of  the  Divine  action.  The  limitations  essentially  concomitant 
on  the  natural  activity  of  a creature  are  destroyed  by  a participa- 
tion in  the  infinite  activity  of  God,  which  participation  is,  however, 
received  through  the  created  activity  of  the  soul.  It  may  be 
objected  that  sin  is  the  only  barrier  between  the  soul  and  God. 
This  objection  has  already  been  anticipated  and  answered.  I 
will,  however,  briefly  summarise  here  the  reply  already  given. 
The  statement  that  sin  is  the  sole  obstacle  to  union  with  God  is 
only  true  if  sin  be  understood  as  including  all  its  consequences, 
and  among  these  the  consequences  of  original  sin.  For  the 
result  of  original  sin  has  been  the  confinement  of  the  soul  within 
the  limits  of  its  natural  capacity  and  the  natural  activities  con- 
ditioned by  that  capacity.  These  natural  activities  are  indeed 
neither  sinful  nor  even  imperfect  within  the  purely  natural  order.1 
They  are,  however,  essentially  limited,  since  they  proceed  from  the 
natural  selfhood  of  the  creature  and  are  conditioned  by  creaturely 
limitations.  They  are  therefore  obstacles  to  the  supernatural 
union  of  the  soul  with  the  infinite  Being  of  God,  and  are  thus 
deordinations  and  imperfections  in  souls  raised  to  that  union  by 
sanctifying  grace.  For  their  essential  limitation  bars  the  soul 
from  that  excess  of  all  limits  in  free  union  with  God  which  it  is 
the  work  of  grace  to  effect.  They  are  therefore  termed  by  the 
mystics  stains,  maculae,  that  befoul  the  supernatural  purity  of  the 
soul,  which  is  perfect  receptivity  of  the  Divine  action  within  it- 
self, and  perfect  union  with  God  through  that  perfect  receptivity. 
These  stains  must  therefore  be  purged  away  before  that  purity  can 
be  achieved.  But  this  natural  life  and  these  natural  activities 
are,  as  we  saw,  grounded  in  a natural  selfhood  essentially  limited 
and  therefore  exclusive  of  the  supernatural  union  with  God,  and 

1 Nevertheless  these  activities  if  left  alone  without  any  help  of  Divine  grace 
inevitably  lead  to  imperfection  and  to  sin  even  in  the  natural  order. 


266  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  supernatural  participation  and  reception  of  His  divine  life 
and  activity.  Therefore  that  selfhood  must  be  destroyed  in 
order  to  attain  the  fulness  of  the  supernatural  union.1  This  self- 
hood, which  is  our  natural  life  as  opposed  to,  and  as  resisting,  the 
infused  supernatural  life,  is  in  Pauline  phraseology  termed  the 
animal  or  psychic  man  as  opposed  to  the  spiritual  or  pneumatic 
man.  This  terminology  emphasises  the  fact  that  the  natural 
selfhood  is  a bondage  within  the  limitations  which  arise  from 
the  sense  data  that  are  the  ultimate  conditions  of  our  natural 
psychical  activity,  limitations  which  resist  and  exclude  the  un- 
limited Divine  activity  infused  by  God  into  our  souls  through 
supernatural  grace.  For  St  Paul  the  Psyche  means  the  soul  as 
the  informing  principle  of  the  body  and  as  dependent  upon  the 
body.  This  term  psyche,  however,  is  all  but  absent  from  the 
Epistles.  St  Paul  prefers  to  term  the  lower  life  of  the  natural 
man,  the  life  that  proceeds  from  his  sense-conditioned  soul, 
“Sarx” — that  is,  “flesh.”  This  term  emphasises  the  essential 
dependence  of  man’s  purely  natural  life  upon  the  data  of  the 
bodily  senses.  By  the  Pneuma,  on  the  other  hand,  St  Paul  means 
the  soul  when  and  in  so  far  as  it  is  emancipated  from  bondage 
to  the  natural  limitations  due  to  sense,  the  limitations  which 
condition  and  constitute  the  merely  natural  life  of  the  “ flesh,” 
by  its  supernatural  elevation  and  motion  by  the  indwelling  Spirit 
of  God,  which  elevation  and  indwelling  is  a supernatural  union 
with  the  unlimited  Being  of  God  whose  divine  operations  it  now 
freely  receives.  Often,  however,  the  term  Pneuma  denotes  for 
St  Paul  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  indwelling,  informing  and  impelling 
the  human  soul,  and  by  this  inhabitation  and  impulsion  effecting 
its  release  from  the  lower  self-proceeding  and  sense-conditioned 
life  to  the  freedom  of  full  participation  of  the  life  of  God.  Both 
meanings  coalesce  in  the  notion  of  a new  divine  life  of  the  soul 
received  supernaturally  from  the  indwelling  Spirit,  a life  in  strong 
contrast  and  opposition  to  the  old  natural  life  which  was  purely 
human  and  creaturely  alike  in  its  principle  and  its  end.2  It  is 
this  contrast  between  the  two  lives  that  St  John  has  in  mind  when 

1 The  Cloud  of  Unknowing  identifies  sin  with  the  natural  selfhood.  “ Thou 
shalt  always  feel  sin  ...  a lump  thou  wottest  never  what  betwixt  Thee  and  Thy 
God  : the  which  lump  is  none  other  than  thyself.  For  thou  shalt  think  it  oned  and 
congealed  with  the  substance  of  thy  being,  yea,  as  it  were,  without  departing  ” 
(separation)  (chap,  xliii). 

2 For  a full  account  of  this  Pauline  doctrine  and  terminology,  see  Pere  Prat, 
Thiologie  de  St  Paul,  vol.  ii. , Book  II.,  chap.  i. 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  267 

he  designates  the  “ habits  and  properties  of  man  ” as  opposed 
to  “ the  virtue  and  properties  of  God  ” as  “ in  the  highest  degree 
imperfect  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  1)  and  the  subject  matter  of  the 
mystical  purgation.  “ Perfect  spiritual  life,”  he  tells  us,  “which 
is  the  possession  of  God  by  union  of  love,  is  obtained  by  the 
mortification  of  all  vices  and  desires  and  of  the  soul’s  entire 
nature.  . . . We  must  bear  in  mind  that  what  the  soul  here  terms 
death  is  the  entire  old  man — namely,  the  use,  occupation  and 
filling  of  the  powers,  memory,  understanding  and  will  with  the 
things  of  this  world,  and,  moreover,  creaturely  desires  and  tastes. 
All  this  is  the  exercise  of  the  old  life,  which  is  the  death  of  the  new 
life,  which  is  spiritual,  wherein  the  soul  cannot  live  perfectly  until 
the  old  man  is  wholly  dead.  ...  In  this  new  life  which  is  the 
attainment  of  perfect  union  with  God  ...  all  the  desires  of 
the  soul  and  its  powers  in  their  affections  and  operations  (that 
in  their  own  nature  were  the  death  and  privation  of  that  spiritual 
life)  are  changed  into  divine.  Moreover,  seeing  that  each  living 
thing,  according  to  the  philosophers,  lives  by  its  activity,  the  soul, 
since  it  now  possesses  its  activities  in  God  on  account  of  its  union 
with  Him,  lives  the  life  of  God,  and  thus  it  has  changed  its  death 
into  life — that  is,  its  animal  life  into  a spiritual  life.  . . . Thus  is 
the  soul  dead  to  all  that  was  its  own,  which  was  its  death,  and 
alive  to  all  within  itself  that  is  God  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  2). 
If  possible,  Mother  Cecilia  is  even  more  explicit  than  St  John. 

“ Resolved  into  nothing,”  she  writes,  “ and  with  her  selfhood  con- 
sumed ” the  soul  “ is  changed  and  converted  into  the  Being  of 
God  . . . by  grace  and  love  and  by  a certain  Divine  participation” 

( Transformation , st.  2.  Cf.  st.  16). 

This  destruction  of  the  natural  extra-godly  activity  or  life 
of  the  soul,  of  the  self  as  independent  of  God,1  and  exclusive  of 
the  full  Divine  union,  is  substantially  effected  through  the  passive 
night  of  spirit.  I say  substantially,  because  a certain  limiting 
activity  that  is  not  the  reception  of  God’s  activity,  that  is  not 
actual  union  with  Him,  must  remain  so  long  as  the  sensible  functions 
of  the  soul  continue,  informing  and  operating  a body  that  is  not, 
as  will  be  the  glorified  body  of  the  Resurrection,  the  perfectly 
docile  instrument  and  adequate  expression  of  the  soul.  Never- 
theless the  radical  change  is  effected  in  and  by  this  night  of  spirit. 
In  this  night,  St  John  tells  us,  “ I went  forth  out  of  my  scanty 

1 Of  course  the  independence  is  itself  God’s  gift  and  cannot  be  independence 
in  the  strictest  sense. 


268  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

human  operation  and  conduct  to  a divine  operation  and  conduct  ” 

( i.e . a reception  of  God’s  unlimited  operation) — “that  is  my 
understanding  went  forth  out  of  itself,  and  from  human  and 
natural  became  divine  ; for  united  to  God  in  that  purgation,  it 
understands  no  more  by  its  natural  force,  but  by  the  Divine 
Wisdom  to  which  it  is  united.  My  will  went  forth  out  of  itself, 
becoming  divine,  for  now,  united  with  the  divine  love,  it  loves 
no  more  meanly  with  its  natural  strength,  but  with  the  energy 
and  pureness  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  Thus  the  will  acts  now  in  the 
things  of  God,  not  in  a human  way,  and  the  memory  is  equally 
transformed  in  eternal  apprehensions  of  glory.  In  fine,  all  the 
energies  and  affections  of  the  sold  are  by  means  of  this  night  and 
purgation  of  the  old  man  renewed  into  a Divine  temper  and 
delight  ” ( O.N. , ii.  4).  All  the  central  psychical  activities  are  to 
become  receptacles  of  the  Divine  activity,  for  thus  are  we  made 
“ partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature.”  But  this  cannot  be  till  the 
radical  selfness  that  is  the  principle  of  our  selfish  independent 
activities  is  destroyed,  and  the  inmost  ego  becomes  a term  or 
receptacle  of  the  Divine  action  instead  of  a principle  of  natural 
extra-divine  action.  This  effected,  the  psychical  faculties  and 
activities  become  channels  and  recipients  of  that  Divine  action,  as 
St  John  here  describes  them.  This  is  the  work  of  the  second  night. 

We  have  seen  how  hitherto  the  Divine  Action  has  been  pro- 
gressively destroying  the  more  external  and  therefore  the  more 
limited  and  limiting  activities  of  the  natural  man,  the  old  Adam. 
Undue  occupation  with  the  peripheral  functions,  desires  for 
worldly  goods  as  ends  in  themselves,  bondage  to  the  limited 
images  and  concepts  drawn  from  creatures,  all  these  have  gradually 
passed  away.  God  has  already  manifested  Himself  in  the  depths 
of  the  soul  as  a force  of  love  in  the  will  and  an  obscure  intuition 
in  the  understanding,  and  these  manifestations  have  become  more 
frequent  and  more  powerful.  Now  at  length  the  time  has  come 
when  the  natural  activities  of  the  soul,  its  desires  and  its  thoughts, 
that  were  not  from  and  for  God,  but  the  expression  of  its  self-will 
as  independent  of  Him,  fail  and  become  impossible.  The  force 
of  the  Divine  action  in  the  soul  has  so  weakened  the  natural  self- 
hood which  is  the  principle  of  these  purely  natural  and  human 
activities'  that  this  selfhood  is  more  or  less  impotent  to  produce 
them. 

“ God,”  says  St  John,  “ now  denudes  the  faculties,  the  affec- 
tions and  the  senses  spiritual  and  sensible,  interior  and  exterior, 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  269 

leaving  the  understanding  in  darkness,  the  will  dry,  the  memory 
empty,  the  affections  of  the  soul  in  the  deepest  affliction,  bitterness 
and  distress  ” ( O.N. , ii.  3).  “ The  Divine  ray  of  contemplation, 

transcending  as  it  does  the  natural  powers,  striking  the  soul  with 
its  divine  light,  makes  it  dark,  and  deprives  it  of  all  the  natural 
affections  and  apprehensions  which  it  previously  entertained  in  its 
own  natural  light.  Under  these  circumstances  the  soul  is  left  not 
only  in  darkness,  but  in  emptiness  also,  as  to  its  powers  and 
desires,  both  natural  and  spiritual  ” ( O.N. , ii.  8).  “ As  God  is 

now  purifying  the  soul  in  its  sensual  and  spiritual  substance,  its 
interior  and  exterior  powers,  it  is  necessary  for  it  that  it  should  be 
in  all  its  relations  empty,  poor  and  abandoned,  in  aridity,  empti- 
ness and  darkness  ” ( O.N. , ii.  6).  The  soul  “ cannot  pray  or 
give  much  attention  to  divine  things.  Neither  can  it  attend  to 
temporal  matters,  for  it  falls  into  frequent  distractions,  and  the 
memory  is  so  profoundly  weakened  that  many  hours  pass  by  with- 
out its  knowing  what  it  has  done  or  thought,  what  it  is  doing  or  is 
about  to  do  ” (O.N.,  ii.  8).  God  has  so  intimately  united  Himself 
with  the  centre  of  the  soul,  and  his  action  there  is  so  potent,  as 
to  suppress  the  natural  activities  which  proceed  from  a self  that 
is  not  entirely  united  with  Him,  wholly  receptive  of  Him.  “ The 
soul  is  made  to  suffer  from  the  failure  and  withdrawal  of  its  natural 
supports  and  apprehensions  which  is  a most  distressing  pain. 
It  is  like  that  of  a person  being  hung  or  suffocated  and  thus 
hindered  from  breathing  ” ( O.N. , ii.  6).  “ The  soul  can  do  so 

little  in  this  state  ; like  a prisoner  in  a gloomy  dungeon,  bound 
hand  and  foot,  it  cannot  stir,  neither  can  it  see  or  feel  any  relief  ” 
(O.N.,  ii.  7). 

The  agony  of  solitary  confinement  in  a narrow  oubliette, 
where  there  is  no  room  to  lie  down  or  stand  upright,  is  but  a 
faint  image  of  this  spiritual  bondage  and  suffocation. 

The  alienation  of  the  soul  from  the  tilings  of  earth  in  this 
ligature  of  its  functions  is  at  times  so  great  that  the  soul  “ looks 
upon  itself  as  if  under  the  influence  of  some  charm  or  spell,  and 
is  amazed  at  all  that  it  hears  and  sees,  which  seem  to  it  to  be  most 
strange  and  out  of  the  way”  ( O.N. , ii.  9).  “ For  this  night,”  he 

tells  us,  “ is  drawing  the  spirit  away  from  its  ordinary  and  common 
sense  of  things,  that  it  may  draw  it  towards  the  divine  sense, 
which  is  a stranger  and  alien  to  all  human  ways  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9, 
loc.  cit.).  In  this  passage  St  John  is  introducing  a further 
conception  to  explain  the  ligature,  or  rather  a new  standpoint 


270  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

from  which  to  view  it — namely,  the  introduction  of  the  soul  into 
a new  environment,  the  world  of  Divine  Reality.  Since,  how- 
ever, it  is  naturally  adapted  to  the  lower  world  of  creaturely 
activities  and  objects,  it  is  at  first  altogether  unable  to  correspond 
with  the  new  environment,  to  receive  freely  the  new  Divine  life. 
Hence  the  impotence  of  ligature.  It  is  as  when  one  who  has 
grown  up  in  the  narrowly  limited  surroundings  of  a sheltered 
home  in  a quiet  country  village  is  suddenly  brought  into  the  vast 
world  of  a populous  city,  as  when  some  new  realm  of  knowledge 
opens  out  before  the  intellect  of  an  individual  or  of  a society,  or 
as  when  the  dormant  heart  of  a youth  or  maiden  is  awakened  by 
the  compulsive  touch  of  first  love  to  a new  life  enormously  wider 
and  fuller  than  the  old.  In  all  these  cases  there  must  be  at  first 
a sense  of  impotence,  ignorance  and  confusion.  Former  land- 
marks are  obliterated,  former  habits  of  thought  and  feeling,  former 
ways  of  action  are  destroyed.  The  soul  cannot  orientate  itself 
in  the  new  world  into  which  it  has  been  thrown.  This  passing 
confusion,  this  temporary  impotence,  are,  however,  no  true  loss  or 
retrogression.  They  are  simply  the  inevitable  concomitants  of  the 
sudden  acquisition  of  new  spiritual  wealth,  of  the  new  step  for- 
ward. In  like  manner  the  ligature  of  this  night  of  spirit  is  no 
true  loss  and  destruction  of  the  good  hitherto  possessed  by  the 
soul,  but  the  necessary  failure  of  the  narrowly  limited  life  of  nature 
at  the  entrance  into  the  soul  of  the  infinite  fulness  of  the  super- 
natural life  of  God.  When  that  entrance  has  been  completely 
effected  the  loss  of  the  lower  life  will  be  felt  no  more,  for  its  entire 
value  will  be  found  again  in  the  new  life  Divine. 

For  the  present,  however,  this  infusion  of  the  Divine  life  is 
not  complete,  the  Divine  work  has  not  yet  been  fully  achieved. 

The  barrier  of  the  egoistic  anti-supernatural  principle  remains 
as  yet  undestroyed.  Powerless  to  produce  any  longer  the  natural 
activity  that  springs  from  it,  this  principle  of  separate  selfness  is 
still  able  to  exclude  the  complete  surrender  of  the  entire  soul  to 
God,  and  therefore  its  full  union  with  Him.  It  has  been  shewn 
that  the  creature  apart  from  its  representation  of  the  Divine  Being 
is  mere  negation,  or  limitation.  Here  there  is  fully  manifest  this 
creaturely  limitation  of  the  self,  the  creatureliness  of  the  self 
standing  apart  from  and  resisting  and  excluding  the  unlimited 
Reality  that  is  being  given  to  the  soul.  The  soul  is  conscious 
of  its  central  ego,  normally  subliminal,  as  impervious  to  the  Divine 
action,  and  as  excluding  by  its  essential  limitation  the  reception 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  271 

and  fruition  of  God.  Had  there  been  no  sin  or  imperfection, 
this  creaturely  limitation  would  have  been  from  the  first  over- 
come and  transcended  by  an  absolute  obedience  to  the  motions 
of  the  indwelling  Spirit,  a complete  receptivity  of  the  unlimited 
Action  and  Being  of  God  in  and  through  the  soul.  The  result 
of  sin,  however,  has  been  to  render  this  created  selfness  opposed 
to  the  Divine  action,  and  exclusive  of  it,  a nature  that  resists 
and  combats  grace.  As  such  it  is  now  felt  as  a barrier  between 
the  soul  and  the  Being  of  God,  a limit  which  the  soul  cannot  as 
yet  overpass  to  enter  into  the  Unlimited.  Nevertheless  it  is, 
as  we  saw  above,  already  too  far  destroyed  by  the  Divine  action 
to  be  able  to  act  as  the  free  principle  of  a natural  soul  life,  the 
life  of  the  old  Adam.  So  the  soul  finds  itself  deprived  by  the 
barrier  of  independent  selfness  of  the  desired  fruition  of  the  Divine 
life  of  God,  and  deprived  by  the  Divine  action  of  the  natural  life 
which  it  has  hitherto  enjoyed.  The  soul  is  conscious  simply  of 
the  barrier  between  itself  and  God,  a barrier  that  appears  for  ever 
insurmountable,  as  indeed,  so  far  as  the  soul’s  natural  capacity 
is  concerned,  it  is.1 

It  may  indeed  be  asked  why  the  Divine  union  was  felt  before 
when  the  soul  was  less  pure  than  it  now  is.  The  answer  is  surely 
contained  in  what  was  said  above.  The  inferior  and  more  external 
action  and  manifestation  of  God  was  felt  and  enjoyed  while  the 
radical  selfhood  remained  entire,  because  that  inferior  and  more 
external  action  and  manifestation  was  compatible  with  the 
existence  of  this  fundamental  barrier  and  limit.  Now  that  the 
Divine  action  is  higher  and  more  interior,  the  radical  selfhood  is 
an  obstacle  to  it,  and  until  it  is  destroyed  it  prevents  the  soul’s 
fruition  of  the  Divine  union  and  operation.  Nor  would  the 
soul  be  any  longer  satisfied  with  those  inferior  degrees  of  Divine 
union.  It  needs  now  a more  unlimited  participation  in  the 
Divine  life  which  it  cannot  possess  as  long  as  it  is  confined  by  the 
fundamental  limits  of  its  natural  selfhood.  Those  limits  have 
therefore  become  to  it  a prison  of  darkness  and  pain.  “ The 
darkness  now  endured  by  the  soul  is  so  profound,  so  terrible  and 

1 The  Cloud  of  Unknowing  speaks  of  this  spiritual  suffering  and  purgation  con- 
stituted by  a consciousness  of  the  selfhood  between  the  soul  and  God.  “ All  men 
have  matter  of  sorrow,  but  most  especially  he  feeleth  matter  of  sorrow  that 
wotteth  and  feeleth  that  he  is.  All  other  sorrows  be  in  comparison  but  game  to 
earnest.  . . . For  he  findeth  evermore  his  wotting  and  his  feeling,  as  it  were 
occupied  and  filled  with  a foul,  stinking  lump  of  himself.  This  sorrow  cleansetli 
the  soul,  not  only  of  sin,  but  also  of  pain  that  it  hath  deserved  for  sin  ” (chap.  xliv). 


272  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

so  very  painful,  because  it  is  felt  in  the  depths  of  the  soul’s  sub- 
stance, and  therefore  appears  a substantial  darkness  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9). 

Apart  from  God  the  creature  is  nothing,  because  created  being 
is  so  essentially  limited  as  to  be  by  comparison  with  God  nonentity. 
Now  the  soul  feels  this  negation  of  the  infinite  Divine  life  as 
constituting  its  very  self.  In  reality  it  is  only  by  this  supernatural 
consciousness  of  the  nothingness  of  its  natural  and  independent 
selfhood,  realised  thus  by  means  of  the  mystic  union  to  which 
that  selfhood  is  the  final  and  the  supreme  obstacle,  that  this  extra- 
godly  limiting  selfhood  can  be  destroyed.  But  the  soul  at  the 
time  cannot  perceive  this.  Nor  can  it  perceive  that  the  stifling 
of  the  natural  activities,  and  the  sense  of  its  independent  selfhood, 
as  excluding  the  Divine  life  and  preventing  the  Divine  union,  are 
themselves  the  effect  of  a more  intimate  and  more  potent  union 
or  working  of  God  which  is  no  longer  content  with  those  more 
external  and  transitory  manifestations  that  left  in  being  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  natural,  selfish,  extra-godly  and 
therefore  essentially  limited  life.  The  soul  is  also  conscious  as 
never  before  of  the  actual  sins  in  which  that  life  has  issued,  their 
utter  opposition  to  God  and  to  the  Divine  life  which  He 
communicates. 

“ When  the  rays  of  this  pure  light  strike  upon  the  soul  in  order 
to  expel  its  impurities  ” (everything  that  opposes  or  excludes  the 
Divine  action  in  the  soul  is  an  impurity),  “ the  soul  perceives 
itself  to  be  so  unclean  and  miserable  that  it  seems  as  if  God  had 
set  Himself  against  it  and  itself  were  set  against  God  ( O.N. , ii.  5). 
“ Now  the  dim  and  divine  light  reveals  to  it  all  its  wretchedness, 
and  it  sees  clearly  that  of  itself  it  can  never  be  other  than  it  is  ” 
( O.N. , ii.  5).  “While  the  divine  purgation  is  removing  all  the 
evil  and  vicious  humours  — the  self-seeking  and  self-impelled 
activities — “ which,  because  so  deeply  rooted  and  settled  in  the 
soul,  were  neither  seen  nor  felt,  but  now  in  order  to  their  expulsion 
and  annihilation  are  rendered  clearly  visible  in  the  dim  light  of 
the  divine  contemplation,  the  soul — though  not  worse  in  itself, 
nor  in  the  sight  of  God — seeing  at  last  what  it  never  saw  before, 
looks  upon  itself  not  only  as  unworthy  of  His  regard,  but  even 
as  a loathsome  object  and  that  God  does  loathe  it  ” (O.N.,  ii.  10). 
“ Indeed  the  soul  at  the  sight  and  consciousness  of  its  own  misery, 
imagines  itself  to  be  lost  and  all  its  good  to  have  perished  for 
ever  ” (O.N.,  ii.  9).  This  apparent  abandonment  of  the  soul  by 
God  is  according  to  St  Jolin  “ the  greatest  affliction  of  the  sorrow- 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  273 

ful  soul  in  this  state.”  This  abandonment  appears  to  the  soul 
certain,  so  certain,  that  anything  the  confessor  may  tell  it  to  the 
contrary  is  ascribed  to  his  misunderstanding  of  its  state  ( O.N. , 
ii.  7).  It  even  appears  final,  a foretaste  of  eternal  damnation. 
The  soul  now  feels  an  appalling  loneliness,  alone  with  a self  that 
excludes  God.  St  Teresa  in  her  less  scientific  and  less  complete 
account  of  this  state  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  her  Autobiography 
insists  on  this  awful  loneliness.  “God,”  she  says,  “then  so 
strips  the  soul  of  everything  that,  do  what  it  may,  there  is  nothing 
on  earth  that  can  be  its  companion.  . . . No  consolation  reaches 
it  from  heaven,  and  it  is  not  there  itself  ; it  wishes  for  none  from 
earth,  and  it  is  not  there  either ; but  it  is,  as  it  were,  crucified 
between  heaven  and  earth,  enduring  its  passion.” 

St  John  also  speaks  of  this  agonising  darkness  as  a warfare 
of  two  contraries,  the  impurity  of  the  soul,  this  natural  God- 
excluding  selfness,  and  its  limited  activity,  with  the  sinfulness 
that  has  been  its  result,  and  the  divine  contemplation — that  is, 
the  Divine  action  in  the  soul  now  so  greatly  increased  and  so 
deeply  penetrative.  This  “ suffering  and  pain  . . . comes  from 
the  meeting  of  two  extremes,  the  human  and  the  divine  : the 
latter  is  the  purgative  contemplation  ” (the  divine  action  in  the 
soul),  “the  human  is  the  soul  itself”  (the  soul  as  the  principle 
of  extra-godly  activity  self-principled  and  selfish).  “ The  divine 
strikes  upon  the  soul  to  renew  it  and  to  ripen  it,  in  order  to  make 
it  divine,  to  detach  it  from  the  habitual  affections  and  qualities 
of  the  old  man  to  which  it  is  closely  united,  cemented  and  con- 
formed. The  divine  extreme  so  breaks  up  and  undoes  the  spiritual 
substance  ” (the  soul  as  excluding  the  divine  action,  and  existing 
apart  from  God  in  its  own  limited  creaturely  mode  of  being  and 
acting),  “ swallowing  it  up  in  a profound  and  deep  darkness,  that 
the  soul  at  the  prospect  and  sight  of  its  own  wretchedness  seems 
to  perish  and  waste  away,  by  a cruel  spiritual  death,  as  if  it  were 
swallowed  up  and  devoured  by  a wild  beast.  ...  For  it  must 
lie  buried  in  this  grave  of  a gloomy  death  that  it  may  attain  to 
the  spiritual  resurrection  for  which  it  hopes  ” (O.N.,  ii.  6).  Else- 
where he  writes  : “ The  virtues  and  properties  of  God  being  in  the 
highest  degree  perfect,  arise  and  make  war  within  the  soul  on  the 
habits  and  properties  of  man  which  are  in  the  highest  degree 
imperfect  ” (Liv.  FL,  st.  1).  In  this  encounter  the  weakness  of 
the  soul  suffers  terribly.  “ The  pain  of  the  soul  comes  from  its 
natural  weakness  moral  and  spiritual ; for  when  this  divine 
s 


274  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

contemplation  strikes  it  with  a certain  vehemence,  in  order  to 
strengthen  it  and  subdue  it,  it  is  then  so  pained  in  its  weakness 
as  almost  to  faint  away.  . . . Sense  and  spirit,  as  if  under  a very 
heavy  and  gloomy  burden,  suffer  and  groan,  in  agony  so  great 
that  they  would  welcome  death  itself  as  a relief  and  a benefit  ” 
(O.N.,  ii.  5). 

We  may  summarise  these  sufferings  of  the  night  of  spirit  as 
four  negative  effects  of  the  Divine  action  : 

(1)  The  failure  of  the  natural  activities  proceeding  from  the 
natural  selfhood  now  being  destroyed  by  the  Divine 
action. 

(2)  The  sense  of  the  absence  of  God  excluded  by  the  limita- 
tion of  the  natural  selfhood  as  yet  unconsumed. 

(3)  The  consciousness  of  the  vileness  and  weakness,  indeed 
the  lack  of  positive  being,  of  that  limiting  and  excluding 
selfhood. 

(4)  The  painful  opposition  between  the  Divine  action  and  the 

selfhood  which  it  is  destroying. 

These  four  effects  constitute  the  primary  purgation  of  this 
night.  St  John  enumerates  precisely  these  four  in  The  Living 
Flame.  “ At  this  juncture  ” (during  the  second  night)  “ the  soul 
suffers  in  the  understanding  a deep  darkness  ” (the  first  effect, 
the  ligature  of  the  interior  powers  proceeding  from  a ligature 
of  consciousness),  “ in  the  will  aridity  ” (the  result  of  the 
ligature)  “ and  conflict  ” (the  fourth  effect),  “ in  the  memory 
the  consciousness  of  its  miseries  ” (the  third  effect),  “ and  in  its 
very  substance  the  soul  suffers  utter  poverty  and  dereliction  ” 
(the  second  effect)  [Living  Flame,  st.  1).  That  these  four  effects 
are  the  results  of  one  and  the  same  divine  action  in  the  depths  of 
the  soul,  we  have  already  seen.  Thus  the  night  is  not  an  accumula- 
tion of  divers  pains  unrelated  to  each  other,  but  the  effect  on  the 
soul  of  one  Divine  operation  through  grace,  when  that  operation 
has  attained  a certain  degree  of  intensity.  It  is  clear  that  the 
spiritual  agony  caused  by  this  fourfold  operation  must  be  un- 
thinkably terrible.  St  John  turns  to  the  complaints  of  Jeremias 
to  express  it,  but  it  is  in  truth  inexpressible.  Each  of  the  four 
effects  by  itself  must  be  painful  enough.  What  then  must  be  the 
agony  of  the  four  together  ? Moreover,  this  night  endures  for 
years  ( O.N. , ii.  17).  During  this  period  there  are  indeed  inter- 
missions in  which,  “ by  the  dispensation  of  God,  the  dim  con- 
templation divested  of  its  purgative  form  and  character  assumes 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  275 

that  of  illumination  and  of  love.”  The  Unitive  Action  of  God 
overpowers  for  a time  the  obstacle  of  the  natural  selfhood  that  is 
not  yet  fully  destroyed,  and  is  manifested  to  the  soul  in  a joyful 
fruition.  “The  root,”  however,  “of  imperfection  and  impurity 
still  remains,”  and  soon  causes  this  special  communication  of  God 
to  cease.  Perhaps  that  communication  was  occasioned  by  the 
accomplishment  of  a notable  purgation  of  the  selfhood,  the  over- 
throw of  a large  part  of  the  barrier  ; but  until  the  barrier  is 
entirely  removed  the  Divine  communication  can  only  be  transient. 
The  darkness  falls  again,  more  penetrating  and  more  impenetrable 
than  before. 

St  John  speaks  of  the  darkness  in  the  understanding  as  a 
blinding  of  the  soul’s  consciousness  by  the  light  of  the  divine 
intuition  ; as  weak  eyes  full  of  motes  and  imperfections  are 
dazzled  by  the  sunlight.  This  is  but  another  way  of  expressing 
the  fourfold  effect  of  the  divine  intuition  in  this  night.  The 
obstacle,  stain  or  weakness,  call  it  which  you  will,  of  the  limited 
natural  consciousness  whose  principle  is  the  natural  selfhood,  is 
felt  as  the  barrier  against  the  enjoyment  of  God,  and  it  is  the 
presence  of  that  intuition  that  renders  this  barrier  sensible. 

In  addition  to  this  fourfold  purgation  in  the  consciousness 
there  is  another  purgation  that  co-operates  with  it,  an  unsatisfied 
and  therefore  most  painful  longing  for  God  that  springs  up  in 
the  will.  As  the  dark  night  proceeds  this  longing  becomes  a 
burning  fire  of  love,  “ a certain  fire  of  love  in  the  spirit.”  This  fire 
increases  as  the  barrier  of  selfhood  which  is  the  principle  of  that 
natural  activity  whose  end  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  self  as  apart 
from  God,  self-realisation  as  its  modern  panegyrists  term  it,  is 
progressively  destroyed.  “ The  soul  feels  itself  wounded  to  the 
quick  by  this  strong  love  divine.”  “ In  this  burning  of  love  in 
the  spirit  God  gathers  and  collects  together  all  the  strength  faculties 
and  desires  of  the  soul,  both  spiritual  and  sensual,  so  that  all  this 
unison  may  use  all  its  energies  and  all  its  forces  in  this  love  ” 
( O.N. , ii.  11).  This  does  not  contradict  what  was  said  above  as 
to  the  complete  impotence  or  imprisonment  of  the  faculties,  for 
that  impotence  relates  to  them  as  they  proceed  from  the  in- 
dependent self-centre,  according  to  their  natural  and  limited 
modes  of  action.  All  the  positive  substance  or  energy  of  these 
faculties  and  their  activities  is  now  concentrated  into,  or  rather 
assumed  by,  one  supernatural  desire  for  God.  “ When,”  continues 
St  John,  “ all  the  desires  and  energies  of  the  soul  are  thus  recollected 


276  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  this  burning  of  love,  and  the  soul  itself  touched,  wounded  and 
set  on  fire  with  love  in  them  all,  what  must  the  movements  and 
affections  of  these  desires  and  energies  be  when  they  are  thus 
wounded  and  burning  in  this  strong  love,  and  they  lack  the  posses- 
sion and  satisfaction  of  their  love,  when  they  are  in  darkness  and 
doubt  about  it,  and  suffering  also,  beyond  all  question,  a most 
grievous  hunger  ? For  the  touch  of  this  love  and  of  the  divine  fire 
dries  up  the  spirit  and  enkindles  its  longing  to  satisfy  its  thirst  ” 
(' Obscure  Night,  Book  II.,  chap.  ii).  This  second  torment  arises 
from  the  same  cause  as  the  first  fourfold  torment.  The  divine 
operation  whose  increase  has  caused  the  dereliction  of  spiritual 
consciousness,  of  the  understanding,  also  infuses  in  proportion  to 
its  growth,  this  fire  of  love  in  the  will.  While  the  fire  thus  arises 
from  the  common  cause  of  both  torments,  the  increased  divine 
operation,  the  more  intimate  and  more  powerful  mystical  union, 
its  painfulness  is  due  to  the  dereliction,  to  the  lack  of  all  conscious- 
ness of  the  Divine  presence. 

Thus  the  fire  of  the  will  burns  in  the  darkness  of  the  under- 
standing, and  that  darkness  renders  its  burning  painful.  Dark- 
ness and  fire — these  are  the  two  images  that  best  express  this 
purgatorial  night.  These  two  pains  are  jointly  destroying  the 
barrier  of  the  God-resisting  natural  selfhood  which  is  the  ground 
of  their  existence.  For  the  central  ego,  the  substance  of  the 
soul,  is  reached  by  two  channels,  cognition  or  spiritual  con- 
sciousness and  will.  Through  these  the  self  energised  in  its  old 
natural  limited  life,  and  through  these  is  that  self  being  now  purged 
of  its  old  selfhood.  Through  and  in  the  understanding  and  will 
the  central  substance  of  the  soul,  the  inmost  ego,  is  being  made  a 
receptacle  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  its  activities  receptacles  of 
the  unlimited  Divine  operations. 

This  effect  is  first  explained  by  St  John  in  so  far  as  it  is  wrought 
by  the  dereliction,  darkness  or  imprisonment  of  the  understanding, 
the  fourfold  negative  purgation.  For  he  allows  us  no  danger  of 
forgetting  the  positive  achievement  of  this  Divinely  wrought 
negation.  “ This  blessed  night,  though  it  darkens  the  spirit,  does 
so  only  to  give  it  light  in  everything,  and  though  it  humbles  it  and 
makes  it  miserable,  does  so  only  to  raise  it  up  and  exalt  it ; and 
though  it  impoverishes  it  and  empties  it  of  all  its  natural  posses- 
sions and  affections,  it  does  so  to  enable  it  to  reach  forward 
Divinely  to  the  possession  and  fruition  of  all  things  both  of 
heaven  and  earth  in  perfect  liberty  of  spirit  in  all.  As  it  is  fitting 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  277 

that  the  primary  elements,  that  they  may  enter  into  the  com- 
position of  all  natural  substances,  should  have  no  colour,  taste 
or  smell  peculiar  to  themselves,  in  order  that  they  may  combine 
with  all  colours,  tastes  and  smells,  so  the  spirit  must  be  simple, 
pure  and  detached  from  all  kinds  of  natural  affections,  actual  and 
habitual,  in  order  that  it  may  participate  in  liberty  and  breadth 
of  spirit  in  the  Divine  wisdom,  wherein  by  reason  of  its  purity 
it  tastes  of  the  sweetness  of  all  things  in  a certain  pre-eminent 
way.  Without  this  purgation  it  is  altogether  impossible  to  feel 
or  taste  the  satisfaction  of  all  this  abundance  of  spiritual  savours. 
For  one  single  affection  remaining  in  the  soul,  or  any  one  particular 
object  to  which  the  spirit  clings  either  actually  or  habitually,  is 
sufficient  to  prevent  all  consciousness,  fruition  or  participation  in 
the  subtlety  and  intimate  sweetness  of  the  spirit  of  love,  which 
contains  within  itself  all  sweetness  eminently  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9). 
The  darkness  thus  destroys  all  the  limited  objects  and  activities 
of  the  understanding  which  constituted  and  conditioned  its 
natural  operation.  The  ligature  or  suspension  of  all  its  natural 
activities  effects  this  directly,  while  the  lack  of  the  former  mystical 
fruition  of  God  removes  the  adherence  of  the  understanding  to 
His  lower  and  more  limited  communications. 

The  reader  will  naturally  wonder  how  a soul  whose  under- 
standing is  thus  deprived  of  its  natural  activities  can  accomplish 
its  duties.  St  John  would,  of  course,  have  admitted  that  the 
ligature  does  not  prevent  the  soul  from  performing,  though 
without  pleasure,  the  duties  of  its  state,  of  whatever  nature  those 
duties  may  be.  The  requisite  activity  would  be  given  either  by 
(1)  a suspension  of  the  ligature  as  far  as  was  necessary  for  the 
purpose  ; or  (2)  the  substitution  of  a supernatural  operation  of 
God  taking  the  place  of  the  natural  activity  required  for  the 
performance  of  the  duty.  The  second  alternative  is  stated  ex- 
plicitly by  St  John  in  The  Ascent,  Book  III.,  chap,  i.,  where, 
however,  he  seems  to  be  speaking  of  mystical  marriage,  when, 
as  we  shall  see,  the  natural  activities  have  become  receptions  of  the 
Divine  operation.  What  is  there  said  is,  however,  applicable 
to  the  ligature  of  this  night. 

When  its  limited  natural  activities  have  been  thus  purged 
away  the  understanding  becomes  a receptacle  of  a divine  intuition, 
in  and  through  which  it  unites  itself  to  and  is  conscious  of  the 
positive  being  of  all  things  as  contained  in  and  known  by  God 
without  being  any  longer  imprisoned  by  their  creaturely  limits. 


278  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

“ The  characteristic  of  a spirit  purified  and  annihilated  as  to  all 
particular  objects  of  affection  and  of  the  understanding  is  to  have 
no  pleasure  in  or  knowledge  of  any  Iking  in  particular,  but  abiding  in 
emptiness  and  darkness,  to  embrace  all  things  in  its  grand  compre- 
hensiveness, that  it  may  fulfil  mystically  the  words  of  the  Apostle, 

‘ having  nothing  and  possessing  all  things  ’ ” ( O.N. , ii.  8).  “ The 

spirit  which  is  still  subject  to  any  actual  or  habitual  affection  or 
particular  knowledge,  or  any  other  limited  apprehension,  cannot 
taste  the  delights  of  the  spirit  of  liberty,  according  to  the  desire 
of  the  will  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9).  “ The  reason  is,”  continues  St  John, 

“ that  the  affections,  feelings  and  apprehensions  of  the  perfect 
spirit,  because  they  are  divine,  are  of  a different  nature  and  order 
to  those  which  are  natural,  and  so  surpass  the  former  that  they 
cannot  be  possessed  either  actually  or  in  habit  till  the  former  have 
been  annihilated,  for  they  are  two  contraries  which  cannot  co- 
exist in  one  and  the  same  subject  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9).  In  other  words, 
a divine  understanding  or  consciousness  replaces  the  old  natural 
and  limited  consciousness  of  the  soul,  and  this  can  only  be  effected 
by  the  destruction  of  that  old  natural  understanding.  This 
Divine  understanding  is  a participation  or  reception  by  the  soul’s 
understanding  of  God’s  Understanding  or  Consciousness  of  Him- 
self and  of  all  things  in  Himself.  St  John  here  terms  it  “ a certain 
Divine  light,  most  lofty,  surpassing  all  natural  light,  and  not 
naturally  cognisable  by  the  understanding.  If,  therefore,  the 
understanding  is  to  be  united  with  this  light  and  to  be  made  Divine 
in  the  state  of  perfection,  it  must  first  of  all  be  purified  and  annihil- 
ated as  to  its  natural  light,  which  must  be  brought  actually  into 
darkness  by  means  of  this  dim  contemplation  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9). 
“ This  night  is  drawing  the  spirit  away  from  its  ordinary  and 
common  consciousness  of  things,  that  it  may  draw  it  towards  the 
divine  consciousness  which  is  strange  and  alien  to  all  human  modes 
of  consciousness  ” ( O.N. , ii.  9).  In  the  passages  above  quoted 
St  John  speaks  of  a purgation  of  the  affections  as  well  as  of  the 
understanding,  as  effected  by  the  darkness.  The  affections,  how- 
ever, belong  to  the  volitional  aspect  of  the  soul.  The  reason  is 
that  the  darkness  does  purge  the  will  indirectly  by  removing  its 
limited  objects.  The  direct  purgation  of  the  will  is,  however,  the 
fire  of  unsatisfied  love.  This  fire  entirely  consumes  the  natural, 
self-principled,  self-impelled  and  self-directed  and  therefore 
essentially  limited  volition,  which  it  replaces  by  itself,  a super- 
natural, unlimited  love,  God-infused  and  God-impelled  and  God- 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  279 

directed  ; indeed  the  participation  and  reception  by  the  will  of 
the  Divine  will  wherein  God  loves  Himself  and  all  things  for  Him- 
self.1 “This  love,”  says  St  John,  “now  partakes  somewhat  of 
the  perfect  union  with  God  ” (it  is  indeed  the  commencement  of 
that  union),  “ and  thus  participates  in  its  properties,  which  are 
rather  operations  of  God  than  of  the  soul  itself,  and  are  received 
passively  by  the  soul,  though  the  soul  has  to  give  its  consent. 
The  heat,  force,  temper  and  passion  of  love,  or  burning,  as  the 
soul  terms  it,  are  solely  the  love  of  God,  Who  is  entering  into  union 
with  the  soul  ” ( O.N. , ii.  11). 

In  this  wise,  through  the  consciousness  and  the  will,  is  destroyed 
the  natural  selfhood  which  was  the  principle  of  that  natural  cogni- 
tion and  volition  which  by  their  essential  limitation  opposed  and 
excluded  the  unlimited  Divine  operation  in  the  soul.  The  purga- 
tive action  of  God  in  the  soul  is  negative  in  its  destruction  of 
natural  modes  of  consciousness  and  volition  alike  in  things  human 
and  divine,  but  positive  as  being  the  increase  of  a supernatural 
life  and  activity,  infinitely  transcending  our  natural  life  and 
activities. 

The  darkness  being  negative  passes  away  when  the  night  is 
over,  but  the  fire  remains,  deprived  of  its  painfulness.  When  the 
barrier  of  the  natural  selfhood  has  been  demolished  and  the  opera- 
tions of  that  selfhood  eradicated,  the  divine  contemplation  no 
longer  causes  the  negative  darkness,  a consciousness  of  the  barrier 
that  excludes  it,  but  replaces  or  rather  restores  the  consciousness 
that  had  been  temporarily  inhibited,  deified  now  by  the  removal 
of  its  natural  limits  which  prevented  the  free  operation  of  God  in 
and  through  it.  The  Divine  intuition  no  longer  blinds  by  reason 
of  the  stains  of  a natural  self-moved  consciousness,  but  since 
these  have  been  purged  away  it  floods  the  sold  with  its  light.  It 
is  true  that  until  death  removes  the  veil  of  our  corporeal  life  that 
light  is  indistinct,  like  a brilliant  light  shining  full  on  to  closed 
eyes.  Nevertheless  the  darkness  has  passed,  and  the  understand- 
ing is  as  conscious  of  the  change  as  is  one  who  goes  with  his  eyes 
shut  from  a dark  room  into  the  glare  of  the  noonday  sun.  The 
Divine  love  no  longer  lacking  its  satisfaction  on  account  of  the 
barrier  of  the  selfhood  between  the  soul  and  the  supernatural 
intuition  of  God’s  Presence,  is  no  longer  a source  of  anguish, 
but  of  ineffable  delight.  While  the  night  lasted  the  soul  did  not 

1 These  participations  being  the  participations  of  a creature  have  their  created 
bases — -infused  faith  and  love  and  their  root  sanctifying  grace. 


280  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

participate  in  the  Divine  understanding,  save  in  such  wise  that  its 
natural  understanding  was  destroyed  and  the  self-barrier  alone 
left  in  full  consciousness.  Hence  its  participation  in  the  Divine 
love  was  but  the  torment  of  a mighty  longing  unfulfilled.  Now 
that  the  night  is  over  the  soul  participates  in  the  Divine  knowledge 
and  love,  with  no  other  obstacle  save  that  of  bodily  life  and  its 
sensible  functions  which,  being  peripheral,  do  not  prevent  this 
Divine  Union  which  is  accomplished  in  the  central  depths.  “ Since 
the  understanding  is  enlightened,”  says  St  John,  “ with  a super- 
natural light,  the  human  understanding  becomes  divine,  being 
made  one  with  the  Divine  understanding.  In  the  same  way 
Divine  love  inflames  the  will  so  that  it  becomes  nothing  less  than 
Divine,  loving  after  a Divine  fashion,  being  united  and  made  one 
with  the  Divine  will  and  the  Divine  love.  The  memory  is  affected 
in  like  manner ; all  the  desires  and  affections  also  are  changed 
divinely  according  to  God.  Thus  the  soul  will  be  of  heaven, 
heavenly,  and  rather  Divine  than  human  ” ( O.N. , ii.  13).  All 
this  is  effected  by  the  divine  operation  which  purged  the  soul 
by  darkening  the  understanding  and  inflaming  the  will.  St  John 
figures  the  purgation  of  this  night  by  fire  consuming  fuel.  First 
all  moisture  is  expelled  and  then  the  fuel  is  blackened  and  dried, 
and  then  that  blackness  is  itself  destroyed.  “ Finally,”  he  con- 
tinues, “ the  fire  having  heated  and  set  on  fire  its  outward  surface, 
transforms  the  whole  into  itself  and  makes  it  beautiful  as  itself. 
The  fuel  under  these  conditions  retains  neither  active  nor  passive 
properties  of  its  own,  except  bulk  and  weight,  for  it  now  possesses 
in  itself  the  properties  and  operations  of  fire.  It  is  dry  and  dries, 
it  is  hot  and  gives  heat,  it  is  radiant  and  emits  radiance.  In  such 
wise  must  we  reason  concerning  this  Divine  fire  of  contemplative 
love  which  before  it  unites  and  transforms  the  soul  into  itself 
purges  it  of  all  its  contrary  qualities  ” ( O.N. , ii.  10).  Elsewhere 
St  John  expressly  identifies  this  fire  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  “ Be- 
fore this  Divine  fire  of  love  has  entered  into  the  substance  of 
the  soul  and  unites  itself  thereto  by  the  complete  and  perfect 
purgation  and  purity  thereof,  this  flame,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
wounds  the  soul,  destroying  and  consuming  the  imperfections  of 
its  evil  habits.  This  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Who  thereby 
disposes  the  soul  for  its  due  union  and  transformation  into  God 
by  love.  For  the  flame  which  unites  itself  with  the  soul,  glorifying 
it,  is  the  very  same  which  before  assailed  and  purified  it,  just  as 
the  fire  which  penetrates  the  fuel  is  the  very  same  which  formerly 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  281 

assailed  and  wounded  it  with  its  flames,  purging  it  of  all  its  filthy 
qualities  until  it  had  so  disposed  it  with  its  heat  that  it  could  enter 
into  it  and  transform  it  into  itself  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  1). 

Contemplative  love  expresses  the  double  aspect  of  the  Divine 
operation  in  this  night  as  intuition  in  the  understanding  (a  nega- 
tive intuition,  however)  and  as  love  in  the  will.  The  intuition, 
first  negative,  then  positive,  and  the  love,  first  painful,  then 
delightful,  are  one  divine  operation,  even  as  the  cognitive  and 
volitional  faculties  are  one  in  the  unity  of  their  common  ground, 
the  individual  ego.  Through  the  purgation  of  these  fundamental 
functions  the  inmost  centre  of  the  soul,  the  root  and  ground  of 
both,  has  been  purged  of  its  limited  natural  egoism,  and  through 
their  participation  and  reception  of  the  Divine  activity,  the  Divine 
knowledge  and  love,  it  has  become  the  receptacle  and  term  of  the 
infinite  Being  of  God  revealed  in  His  twofold  action  as  united  in  a 
special  manner  with  the  soul.  The  one  divine  operation,  that  in 
the  night  was  darkness  in  the  understanding  and  painful  longing 
in  the  will,  is  now  light  in  the  understanding,  though  veiled  as  long 
as  earthly  life  endures,  and  unitive  love  in  the  will,  and  in  the 
affections,  a heat  that  warms  without  pain.  It  is  aptly  symbol- 
ised by  electricity.  Electricity  operates  in  three  ways,  as  motive 
force,  as  heat  and  as  light.  All  these  three  are  but  aspects  of  one 
electric  energy.  So  is  this  operation  of  God,  motive  energy  in  the 
will,  the  heat  of  an  ardent  spiritual  passion  in  the  affections,  these 
two  forms  being  specially  related,  as  are  also  volition  and  affection, 
and  in  the  understanding  a supernatural  illumination.  This  is 
true  also  of  the  ordinary  working  of  grace.  Indeed  this  electric 
symbolism  is  applicable  to  the  natural  psychology  of  the  human 
soul,  in  which  the  soul  energises  in  these  three  ways  and  should,  if 
its  life  be  well  ordered,  be  able  to  convert  readily  one  form  of 
energy  into  another — for  instance,  a perception  of  truth  into 
action,  an  emotion  of  pity  into  self-sacrifice.  This  triple  energy 
of  electricity  is  nevertheless  a symbol  most  peculiarly  apt  to 
illustrate  the  triple  effect,  when  the  second  night  is  past,  of  the  one 
simple  and  indivisible  operation  or  union  of  God  in  and  with  the 
soul,  after  it  has  purged  the  soul  through  its  faculties  and  by  this 
purgation  has  transformed  and  taken  full  possession  of  the  inmost 
centre.1  But  we  have  now  left  the  purgative  night  behind  and 

1 The  reader  may  perhaps  object  that  after  speaking  hitherto  of  two  funda- 
mental faculties  or  aspects  of  the  soul — namely,  cognition  and  volition,  constituting 
with  their  ground  the  created  Trinity — I now  speak  of  three,  adding  affection 


282  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

entered  almost  imperceptibly  into  the  mystical  union  which  is  the 
highest  possible  in  this  life,  that  state  of  transformation  into  God 
which  has  received  the  name  of  spiritual  or  mystical  marriage. 
Before  I discuss  this  state  further  I have  to  consider  in  my  next 
chapter  a question  which  must  have  arisen  in  the  mind  of  an 
attentive  reader  of  this  account  of  the  night  of  spirit — namely,  the 
relationship  between  this  mystical  purgation  and  the  purgatory 
which  awaits  after  death  the  vast  majority  of  souls  that  die  in  the 
love  of  God. 


Appendix 

Throughout  my  discussion  of  the  second  night  I have  followed 
St  John  in  treating  it  as  a more  or  less  continuous  and  clearly 
characterised  stage  of  the  mystical  way.  We  must,  however, 
always  bear  in  mind  that,  as  can  be  gathered  from  that  which  St 
John  himself  tells  us,  this  continuous  night  is  experienced  only 
by  those  who  are  to  be  raised  to  the  permanent  habit  of  the  trans- 
forming union.  There  are,  however,  many  mystics  who  are  not 
raised  so  high  in  this  life,  far  more,  indeed,  than  those  who  are. 
For  these  the  purgation,  which  in  its  fulness  and  continuity  con- 
stitutes the  second  night,  is  tempered  both  in  its  intensity  and  in 
its  mode  of  occurrence.  “ God,”  St  John  tells  us,  “ admits  ‘ such 
souls  ’ at  intervals  into  this  night  of  contemplation  or  spiritual 
purgation,  causing  his  sun  to  shine  upon  them  and  then  to  hide  its 
face.  . . . These  morsels  of  obscure  contemplation  are  never  so 
intense  as  in  that  awful  night  of  contemplation  of  which  I am  now 
speaking  and  in  which  God  purposely  places  the  soul,  that  He  may 
raise  it  to  the  Divine  union  ” — (i.e.  the  permanent  transforming 
union  or  mystical  marriage)  ( Dark  Night , ii.,  chap.  i).  In  the  case 
of  these  souls  the  selfhood  is  gradually  worn  away,  though  never 
in  this  life  so  completely  destroyed  as  in  the  greater  mystics  of 
whom  St  John  writes,  by  more  or  less  brief  accesses  of  purgative 
contemplation,  alternating  with  positive  fruition  of  the  mystical 
union  intuition  in  its  positive  form.  In  these  accesses  of  purga- 

or  spiritual  feeling.  But  affection  should  not  be  regarded  as  so  primary  or  so 
distinct  a faculty  or  aspect  as  cognition  and  volition.  It  is  a concomitant 
of  both,  but  is  particularly  attached  and  subordinate  to  the  will  or  conation, 
as  indeed  heat  is  specially  related  to  motive  energy,  though  accompanying  also 
cognition  as  heat  accompanies  light  (see  Chapter  V). 


THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  283 

tive  union  God  works  on  the  soul  after  the  fashion  described  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  His  work,  however,  is  not  so  complete, 
because  the  negative-seeming  union  does  not  endure  till  its  full 
work  has  been  accomplished  in  the  complete  destruction  of  the 
limiting  selfhood.  Nevertheless  this  intermittent  and  less  in- 
tense purgation  is  one  in  principle  with  the  continuous  and  com- 
plete purgation,  one  and  the  same  union  and  operation  of  God 
working  in  the  same  way. 

Moreover,  since  even  the  continuous  purgation  admits  of 
intervals,  no  strict  demarcation  can  be  made  between  the  inferior 
intermittent  purgation  and  the  second  night  in  its  complete  and 
continuous  form.  The  former  tends  to  pass  over  into  the  latter. 
The  reader  must  not  therefore  be  surprised  if  in  the  actual  experi- 
ences of  mystics  it  is  often  difficult  to  trace  the  successive  stages 
of  the  mystic  way  as  laid  down  by  St  John.  Those  stages  aie, 
nevertheless,  substantially  present  in  the  manner  and  degree 
peculiar  to  the  individual  mystic.  In  the  spiritual  life  of  those 
mystics  who  have  passed  through  all  the  stages  and  have  reached 
the  fulness  of  the  permanent  transforming  union  they  are  all 
present,  and  are  more  or  less  clearly  marked,  as  indeed  they  must 
have  been  in  St  John’s  personal  experience.  I must  emphasise, 
however,  the  word  fulness.  The  study  of  mystical  biographies 
has  led  me  to  conclude  that  St  John  has  been  too  absolute  in  his 
apparent  teaching  that  the  entire  second  night  must  always  be 
passed  through  before  any  measure  is  granted  of  the  transforming 
union.  The  transient  gift  of  the  act  of  that  union,  which  consti- 
tutes the  spiritual  betrothal,  often  precedes  the  end  of  the  second 
night.  Moreover,  a certain  degree  of  habitul  union  in  which 
God  is  continuously  manifested  as  possessing  the  centre  of  the 
soul  (see  Chapter  XI. ) is  granted  to  certain  mystics  in  alternation 
with  the  negative  and  purgative  union  of  the  second  night.  The 
reason  is  that  the  barrier  of  natural  selfhood  has  been  sufficiently 
destroyed  to  permit  of  that  Divine  possession  and  penetration  of 
the  central  ego  which  is  of  the  essence  of  mystical  marriage,  but 
has  not  been  so  entirely  destroyed  as  to  permit  of  that  conscious 
possession  being  altogether  permanent.  Hence  certain  intervals 
of  the  second  night  of  purgation  are  requisite  to  complete  the  en- 
tire destruction  of  the  natural  selfhood.  This  I believe  to  have 
happened  in  the  case  of  Lucie  Christine.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
fulness  of  the  transforming  union  as  it  is  described  by  St  John 
and  by  Mother  Cecilia,  with  its  permanence  of  conscious  Divine 


284  THH  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

possession,  requires  the  previous  complete  destruction  of  the 
selfhood.  Therefore  in  such  cases  the  second  night  is  wholly 
ended  when  the  soul  enters  the  transforming  union.  These  cases, 
however  rare,  are  those  in  which  the  second  night  and  the  trans- 
forming union  are  alike  manifested  in  their  intensest,  most  perfect 
and  therefore  most  characteristic  forms.  It  is,  however,  obvious 
that  for  the  purpose  of  the  theoretical  student  of  mysticism,  of 
the  “ mystologist,”  the  more  intense,  more  perfect  and  more  fully 
characterised  forms  of  mystical  experience,  in  which  the  progress 
of  the  mystical  union  is  more  clearly  distinguishable,  are  to  be  pre- 
ferred as  the  subject  matt  er  of  study  to  weaker  and  more  indefinite 
forms.  To  these,  therefore,  I confine  this  study,  following  thus 
the  method  of  St  John  himself.1 

1 Among  modern  mystical  biographies  the  experience  of  the  night  of  spirit 
endured  by  Sceur  Gertrude  Marie,  a nun  of  Angers,  is  in  very  close  correspondence 
with  the  theoretical  description  given  by  St  John.  In  her  case  this  night  was 
exceptionally  well  marked  in  its  chronology  and  exceptionally  continuous.  (See 
Une  Mystique  de  Nos  Jours,  by  her  confessor,  the  Abbe  Legueu,  pp.  98  sqq.)  This 
mystic  was  raised  to  a supreme  degree  of  Divine  union,  but  the  natural  narrowness 
and  pettiness  of  her  intelligence  unhappily  necessitated  a translation  of  her 
mystical  experience  into  a somewhat  irritating  and  monotonous  series  of  images 
and  concepts  derived  from  her  narrowly  limited  understanding  and  imagination. 
Fr.  Hecker,  the  founder  of  the  Paulists,  died  at  the  end  of  a long-continued  night 
of  the  spirit. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PURGATORY  AND  THE  PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT 


O Pain,  Love's  mystery, 

Close  next  of  kin 

To  joy  and  heart’’ s delight, 

Low  Pleasure’s  opposite, 

Choice  food  of  sanctity 
And  medicine  of  sin. 

Thou  sear’ st  my  flesh,  0 Pain, 

But  brand’  st  for  arduous  peace  my  languid  brain, 

And  bright’ nest  my  dull  view, 

Till  I,  for  blessing,  blessing  give  again, 

And  my  roused  spit  it  is 
Another  fire  of  bliss. 

Wherein  I learn 

Feelingly  how  the  pangful,  purging  fire 

Shall  furiously  burn 

With  joy,  not  only  of  assured  desire, 

But  also  present  joy 

Of  seeing  life’s  corruption,  stain  by  stain  , 

Vanish  in  the  clear  heal  of  love  irate. 

Leaving  the  man,  so  dark  erewhile, 

The  mirror  merely  of  God’s  smile. 

Coventry  Patmore, 

Pain. 

Christopher  came  out  of  that  state  broken  and  scorched,  but  saved. 
He  had  left  Christopher  and  gone  over  to  God. 

Romain  Rolland, 

Jean  Christophe,  Eng.  trs.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  366. 

In  iis  quae  de  Purgatorio  determinate  non  sunt  ab  Ecclesia 
standum  est  iis  quae  sunt  magis  conformia  dictis  et  revelationibus 
Sanctorum.  S.  Thomas. 

(Quoted  in  title-page  in  English  translation 
of  Treatise  on  Purgatory.) 

Even  if  St  John  had  omitted  all  reference  to  purgatory  in  his 
discussion  of  the  night  of  spirit,  the  thoughts  of  his  reader  would 
285 


286  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

inevitably  have  been  turned  in  that  direction.  The  night  of 
spirit  is  obviously  a purgatory,  and  moreover  like  the  purgatory 
after  death,  it  is  at  the  same  time  a satisfaction  for  any  temporal 
punishment  that  may  be  due  to  sin.  Nay,  its  satisfaction  is  more 
potent,  since  its  sufferers  can  merit  by  their  free  acceptance  of  the 
terrible  pains  of  this  night.  St  John,  however,  has  explicitly 
referred  to  purgatory.  At  the  end  of  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Book  II.  he  writes  of  those  placed  in  this  second  night.  “ They  are 
purged  in  this  life  after  the  fashion  that  souls  are  purged  in  the  life 
to  come,1  for  this  purgation  is  that  purgation  which  must  be  under- 
gone after  death.  The  soul,  therefore,  that  passes  through  this 
night  either  enters  not  at  all  into  purgatory  (lit.  that  place)  or  is 
detained  there  but  a very  short  space,  seeing  that  one  hour  of  this 
night  is  far  more  profitable  than  many  there.”  Personally  I should 
maintain  that  the  soul  which  has  entirely  passed  through  the 
second  night  and  has  reached  die  mystical  union  that  lies  beyond 
it  does  not  enter  purgatory  at  all,  since  its  purgation  has  been  fully 
accomplished.  Be  that  as  it  may,  there  can  be  no  question  that 
St  John  teaches  the  substantial  identity  of  the  spiritual  night  and 
purgatory,  that  one  and  the  same  spiritual  operation  is  accom- 
plished in  both  alike.  In  the  tenth  chapter  St  Jolui  says  that  we 
“ learn  by  the  way  how  souls  suffer  in  purgatory.”  It  is  true  that 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  St  John  distinguishes  between  “the  loving 
dark  and  spiritual  fires  ” which  purge  the  soul  in  the  night  of 
spirit,  and  the  “ dark  and  material  fires  ” of  purgatory.  We  must, 
however,  bear  in  mind  that  the  Church  has  deliberately  refused, 
explicitly  at  the  Council  of  Florence,  and  at  Trent  implicitly,  by 
her  definition  of  the  dogma  of  purgatory  wherein  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  fire,  to  define  the  existence  of  material  fire  in  purgatory. 
This  opinion  of  St  John  is  obviously  not  the  expression  of  his  own 
experience,  but  is  simply  his  adherence  to  the  common  opinion  of 
theologians.  If  we  can  see  no  sufficient  reason  to  posit  material 
fire  in  purgatory,  we  are  perfectly  free  to  disbelieve  its  existence. 
If  therefore  we  adopt  a view  of  purgatory  in  which  its  operation 
is  fully  accounted  for  by  an  immaterial  fire,  there  is  no  need  to 
introduce  another  material  fire  which  is  thus  otiose.  Entia  non 
sunt  multiplicanda  prceter  necessitatem  is  a sound  philosophical 
maxim  of  application  in  this  matter.  Moreover,  purgation  by  a 

1 Literally  “ in  hell  : infierno  ” ; but  the  context,  as  indeed  the  most  elementary 
principles  of  Catholic  theology,  makes  it  plain  that  St  John  is  speaking  of  purgatory 
— -considered  as  a species  of  temporary  hell,  or  as  in  locality  adjoining  hell. 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  287 

spiritual  suffering,  which  is  so  inevitably  symbolised  by  the 
material  image  of  fire  that  no  other  image  would  symbolise  it 
equally  well,  would  sufficiently  account  for  and  would  fully  justify 
the  genera]  tradition  of  the  existence  of  fire  in  purgatory. 

Just  such  a view  of  purgatory  will  be  ours  if  we  accept  its 
substantial  identity  with  the  night  of  spirit.  This  identity  could 
be  established  by  examination  of  the  purgatorial  operation  of 
the  second  night,  its  scope  and  mode.  The  result  of  such  an 
examination  would  be  the  conviction  that  this  earthly  purification 
is  the  same  in  principle  with  that  which  all  souls  must  endure 
as  the  necessary  condition  of  entrance  into  the  beatific  vision  of 
heaven.  This  work  has,  however,  been  already  done  for  us  by  a 
mystic  who  may  be  truly  styled  the  doctress  of  purgatory.  The 
best  treatise  on  purgatory  ever  written  is  that  of  St  Catherine 
of  Genoa.  It  is  unhappily  a patchwork  of  the  saint’s  utterances 
on  the  subject,  pieced  together  after  her  death,  and  it  has  suffered 
severely  from  interpolation.1  Hence  it  is  ill  arranged  and  in 
places  inconsistent.  Indeed  one  paragraph,  even  one  sentence, 
is  sometimes  inconsistent  with  itself.  Moreover,  many  of  the 
sentences  are  expressed  so  loosely  that  their  exact  meaning  cannot 
be  made  out,  the  natural  result  of  writing  down  from  memory 
sayings  remembered  only  in  their  general  drift.  Nevertheless 
this  little  treatise  contains  the  most  profound  conceptions  and 
the  most  illuminating  views  of  purgatory  anywhere  to  be  found. 
A series  of  lightning  flashes  lays  bare  its  depths,  not  indeed  to  the 
imagination,  but  to  the  intelligence,  and  still  more  to  the  spiritual 
intuition  of  the  reader.  St  Catherine’s  account  of  purgatory 
possesses  a convincing  realism  lacking  in  the  imaginative  accounts 
of  other  writers  and  seers.  With  her  there  is  no  material  imagery, 
save  for  a few  similes  which  are  presented  as  similes,  not  as 
descriptions.  This  short  treatise  is  a spiritual  vision  which 
penetrates  behind  symbolism  and  reveals  the  essential  nature 
of  the  purification  after  death.  St  Catherine’s  doctrine  is  de- 
rived from  her  mystical  experience  in  this  life.  She  tells  us  this 
herself.  “ This  holy  soul,  yet  in  the  flesh,  found  herself  placed  in 
the  purgatory  of  God’s  burning  love,  which  consumed  and  purified 
her  from  whatever  she  had  to  purify,  in  order  that  after  passing 
out  of  this  life  she  might  enter  at  once  into  the  immediate  presence 
of  God  her  Beloved.  By  means  of  this  furnace  of  love  she  under- 
stood lioiv  the  souls  of  the  faithful  are  placed  in  purgatory Her 

1 See  Baron  von  Hugel,  Mystical  Element,  vol.  i.,  Appendix. 


288  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

account  is  not,  therefore,  simply  that  of  her  own  mystical  state, 
the  night  of  spiritual  purgation,  transferred  arbitrarily  to  purga- 
tory. On  the  contrary,  her  insight  into  that  purgation  was  at 
the  same  time  an  insight  into  the  nature  of  purgatory,  because 
it  was  an  insight  into  the  essential  character  of  the  purification 
necessary  in  order  to  full  supernatural  union  between  the  soul 
and  God,  and  therefore  the  common  principle  of  both  purgatories, 
the  mystical  purgatory  here  and  the  purgatory  which  awaits  us 
hereafter.  This  is  the  only  vision  into  eschatological  realities 
possible  to  us  on  earth,  an  insight  into  the  nature  and  conditions 
of  union  between  God  and  the  soul,  whether  that  union  be  effected 
before  or  after  bodily  death.  Heaven,  purgatory  and  hell  and 
the  various  spiritual  states  of  the  souls  incarnate  on  earth  are 
essentially  constituted  by  the  relationship  of  the  soul  to  God,  either 
the  positive  relationship  of  union,  or  the  negative  relationship  of 
separation.  Anything  not  necessarily  arising  out  of  this  relation- 
ship merely  a concomitant,  not  an  essential  constituent,  of  any 
of  theoe  states.  Therefore  to  know  the  relationship  of  souls  to 
God  is  to  apprehend  the  fundamental  principles  of  eschatology. 

In  virtue  of  such  knowledge — the  knowledge  of  personal 
experir  <-‘e — St  Catherine  describes  the  nature  of  purgatory. 
Examination  of  her  description  establishes  its  identity  with  St 
John’s  description  of  the  night  of  spirit.  A brief  comparison 
between  the  two  accounts  will  therefore  enable  us  to  share  not 
indeed  St  Catherine’s  insight  into  the  substantial  identity  of  the 
mystical  and  eschatological  purgatories,  but  the  intellectual  con- 
viction of  that  identity  to  which  that  intuition  gave  birth. 

We  saw  that  one  of  the  two  chief  effects  of  the  Divine  action 
in  the  night  of  spirit  was  a fourfold  negative  effect  on  the  soul 
through  the  spiritual  consciousness.  The  first  of  these  was  the 
complete  ligature  of  the  natural  functioning  of  the  faculties,  a 
spiritual  imprisonment  or  stifling.  This  ligature  is  mentioned  in 
several  passages  of  St  Catherine’s  treatise.  The  souls  “can  re- 
member nothing,”  she  tells  us,  “ of  themselves  or  others,  whether 
good  or  evil.  . . . They  are  incapable  of  thinking  of  themselves  ” 
(chap.  i).  Here  indeed  she  explains  that  the  ligature  is  due  to 
the  absorption  of  the  souls  in  the  Divine  will,  but  that  is  itself 
but  an  effect  or  aspect  of  the  Divine  action  within  them  and  thus 
is  reducible  to  the  cause  of  that  ligature  assigned  by  St  John 
— namely,  this  Divine  operation  itself.  The  ligature  is  in  St 
Catherine’s  thought  carried  so  far  that  she  even  maintains  that 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  289 

the  souls  in  purgatory  “ do  not  know  that  their  sufferings  are  for 
the  sake  of  their  sins,  nor  can  they  keep  in  view  the  sins  them- 
selves ” (chap.  i).  Without  adopting  an  opinion  so  opposed  to 
the  general  sense  of  Catholics  that  it  seems  clearly  an  exaggera- 
tion, of  statement  at  least,  we  can  accept  the  main  truth  which 
underlies  it — namely,  that  the  souls  have  no  longer  a psychical 
activity  conversant  with  the  particular  or  limited  as  such — that 
is,  with  the  creature  as  apart  from  God,  which  would  thus  come 
between  them  and  God. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  the  treatise  is  a detailed  account  of 
the  ligature.  This  indeed  (as  Baron  von  Hiigel  points  out)  was 
spoken  by  St  Catherine  only  of  her  experience  on  earth,  not  of 
purgatory.  It  was,  however,  applied  to  Purgatory  by  the  com- 
pilers of  the  treatise,  which  is  a proof  that  they  recognised  its 
substantial  applicability  to  Purgatory.  Moreover,  as  we  have 
seen,  ligature  is  mentioned  in  other  chapteis  whose  referee  e is 
directly  purgatorial.  I will  therefore  quote  a few  paragraph 

“I  see  the  soul,”  she  says,  “estranged  to  all  things,  even 
spiritual,  which  can  give  it  nourishment.  ...  It  has  no  power  of 
tasting  anything  temporal  or  spiritual  by  will,  by  understanding, 
by  memory,  so  that  I can  say  : ‘ This  thing  pleases  me  me  than 
that  other.’  My  soul  is,  as  it  were,  besieged  in  such  a uanner 
that  all  spiritual  or  bodily  refreshments  are  cut  off.  ...”  The 
soul  “ goes  on,  removing  everything  which  might  feed  the  inward 
man,  and  besieges  itself  so  straitly,  that  not  even  the  least  particle 
of  imperfection  can  pass  without  being  spied  out  and  rejected 
with  abhorrence.”  “ I remain,”  adds  the  saint,  “ in  my  prison.” 
To  St  Catherine  indeed  that  prison  is  this  world  and  the  chain 
is  the  body.  This,  however,  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the 
natural  selfish  activities  to  be  destroyed  in  the  night  of  spirit  are 
ultimately  due  to  the  limitation  of  the  soul  by  its  sense-conditioned 
activities,  from  which  it  can  only  be  set  free  by  the  action  of 
sanctifying  grace. 

We  may  remark  here  that  the  effect  of  the  night  of  spirit 
which  consists  in  a ligature  of  the  sensible  activities  of  the  soul 
is  effected  in  a completeness  impossible  in  any  but  this  worldly 
state,  by  death  itself,  which  destroys  even  those  most  external 
activities,  such  as  bodily  sight  and  hearing,  which  continued  during 
the  night  of  spirit.  This  ligature,  therefore,  has  no  existence  in 
purgatory.  A certain  ligature,  however,  does  continue  in  purga- 
tory, a ligature  of  the  more  spiritual  operations  of  the  soul  which 


T 


290  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

proceed  from  the  purely  natural  principle  of  the  ego  as  apart  from 
God.  Moreover,  the  Divine  operation  in  the  soul  does  not  restore 
the  substantial  worth  of  the  sensible  activities  until  the  obstacle 
constituted  in  the  centre  of  the  soul  by  the  effect  of  their  limitations 
has  been  fully  purged  away. 

The  two  effects  next  discussed  in  my  account  of  the  second 
night  were  the  soul’s  consciousness  of  abandonment  by  God  or, 
to  put  it  in  another  way,  of  His  absence,  and  of  the  worthlessness 
or  rather  the  positive  evil  of  its  natural  selfhood,  as  being  simply 
an  obstacle  excluding  God.  These  effects  are  partially  expressed 
by  St  Catherine  in  her  simile  of  a covered  object.  “ It  is,”  she 
says,  “ as  with  a covered  object.  The  object  cannot  respond  to 
the  rays  of  the  sun,  not  because  the  sun  ceases  to  shine — for  it 
shines  without  intermission — but  because  the  covering  intervenes. 
Let  the  covering  be  destroyed,  again  the  object  will  be  exposed 
to  the  sun,  and  will  answer  to  the  rays  which  beat  against  it  in 
proportion  as  the  work  of  destruction  advances.  Thus  the  souls 
are  covered  by  a rust — that  is,  sin  ” (as  is  clear  from  what  has  been 
already  said,  sin  must  be  understood  in  a very  wide  and  deep 
sense) — “ which  is  gradually  consumed  away  by  the  fire  of  purga- 
tory. The  more  it  is  consumed,  the  more  they  respond  to  God 
their  true  sun  ; their  happiness  increases  as  the  rust  falls  off,  and 
lays  them  open  to  the  Divine  ray  ” 1 (chap.  ii).  “ The  souls  of 
the  faithful  are  placed  in  purgatory  to  get  rid  of  all  the  rust  and 
stain  of  sin  that  in  this  life  was  left  unpurged  ” (chap.  i).  This 
purgation  is  a gradually  decreasing  consciousness  of  the  limited 
imperfect  activities  of  the  natural  independent  self,  as  the  obstacle 
excluding  the  soul’s  free  union  with  the  infinite  Being  of  God. 
St  John  also  makes  use  of  this  very  simile  of  rust.  “ This  con- 
templation,” he  says,  “ is  also  purifying  the  soul,  undoing  or 
emptying  or  consuming  in  it,  as  fire  consumes  the  rust  and  mouldi- 
ness  of  the  metal,  all  the  affections  and  habits  of  imperfection 
which  it  had  contracted  in  the  whole  course  of  its  life  ” ( O.N. , 
ii.  6).  In  the  fifth  chapter  St  Catherine  again  refers  to  the  rust 
of  sin. 

The  third  chapter  has  been  entitled  “ Separation  from  God 
is  the  greatest  punishment  of  Purgatory.”  Chapter  six  is 

1 According  to  Baron  von  H'ugel  we  have  here  a conflation  of  two  distinct 
similes  : the  uncovering  of  an  object  to  the  sunlight,  and  the  removal  of  rust  by 
fire  ( Mystical  Element  of  Religion , vol.  i.,  pp.  443-444).  Both,  however,  represent 
the  same  spiritual  operation. 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  291 

devoted  to  the  simile  of  the  loaf  of  bread.  The  vision  of  God 
is  the  bread,  the  absence  of  which  causes  the  hunger  which  tor- 
ments the  souls  in  purgatory.  In  the  eighth  chapter  we  read  : 
“ It  appears  to  me  that  the  greatest  pain  the  souls  in  purgatory 
endure  proceeds  from  their  being  sensible  of  something  in  them- 
selves displeasing  to  God  ” (this  I understand  of  the  extra-Godly 
selfhood  as  explained  above)  “ and  that  it  has  been  done  volun- 
tarily against  so  much  goodness  ” (the  deordination  of  that  undue 
attachment  of  the  soul  to  the  creature  which  hinders  its  free 
union  with  God  is  the  result  of  sin  because  it  was  first  caused  by 
original  sin,  and  because  it  would  have  been  entirely  destroyed 
by  the  Divine  action  through  grace  had  it  not  been  for  actual  sin 
and  culpable  imperfection  resisting  Divine  grace ).  . . . They  know 
the  truth  and  how  grievous  is  any  obstacle  which  does  not 
let  them  approach  God.”  In  chapter  nine  we  are  told  “the 
soul  finds  itself  stopped  by  sin,”  and  the  treatise  speaks  of  “ this 
sense  of  the  grievousness  of  being  kept  from  beholding  the  Divine 
light.”  1 Of  the  pain  caused  by  the  clash  of  the  two  extremes  the 
imperfect  extra-godly  self  and  the  Divine  Action,  St  Catherine 
has  no  explicit  mention.  It  is,  however,  implied  in  my  opinion 
by  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  treatise. 

The  thought  of  the  saint  is,  however,  fixed  primarily  on  the 
purifying  fire  of  unsatisfied  love  in  the  will — which  is  pre-eminently 
the  fire  of  purgatory.  Her  account  of  this  is  largely  identical 
with  that  of  St  John.  In  the  third  chapter  St  Catherine  speaks 
of  the  “ fire  of  love,  which  draws  ” the  soul  “ to  its  end  with  such 
impetuosity  and  vehemence  that  any  obstacle  seems  intolerable.” 
In  the  same  chapter,  indeed,  she  says  that  “ there  springs  up  within 
them  a fire  like  that  of  hell.”  This  likeness  can  only  be  in  respect 
of  its  painfulness  and  of  its  causation  by  the  absence  of  God.  The 
fire  of  hell  is  not  a fire  of  love.  In  the  marvellous  sixth  chapter 
this  fire  of  longing  love  is  hunger  after  the  Divine  Bread.  Else- 
where we  read  that  it  was  God  who  kindled  that  fire  of  love 
which  consumes  every  imperfection  there  is  to  be  consumed 
(chap.  ix).  And  again  she  speaks  of  “ that  operation  of  His 

1 In  certain  places  some  external  punishment  rather  than  the  inordinate  self- 
limitation of  the  soul,  or  indeed  anything  inherent  in  the  soul,  is  regarded  as  the 
obstacle.  This  is,  however,  due  to  the  correction  of  some  theologian  whose 
purgatory  was  merely  a satisfaction  without  any  intrinsic  purification.  Accord- 
ing to  Baron  von  Hligel,  the  ten  final  chapters  of  the  Trattalo  are  chiefly  the  work 
cf  redactors.  We  can,  however,  utilise  them  where,  as  in  my  quotations,  they 
agree  with  the  teaching  of  certainly  authentic  passages. 


292  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

pure  and  simple  love  which  God  works  in  us  ; wherein  he  pene- 
trates and  burns  the  soul  ” (chap.  xii).  These  statements  indeed 
belong  to  chapters  referring  directly  to  the  purgation  of  this  life — 
but  their  conespondence  with  statements  in  the  purgatorial 
chapters  is  obvious  and  serves  to  bring  home  to  us  the  identity  of 
principle  in  the  two  purgations.  In  the  ninth  chapter,  indubit- 
ably purgatorial,  the  saint  discusses  this  fire  at  greater  length. 
God,  she  says,  “ imparts  a certain  attractive  impulse  of  His 
burning  love,  enough  to  annihilate  ” the  soul,  “ though  it  be 
immortal  ; and  in  this  way  so  transforms  the  soul  into  Himself, 
its  God,  that  it  sees  in  itself  nothing  but  God  ” (this  is  obviously 
the  end  rather  than  the  process  of  Purgatory,  for  that  process  was 
effected  through  ligature  and  sensible  dereliction),  who  goes  on 
thus  attracting  and  inflaming  it,  until  He  has  brought  it  to  that 
state  of  existence  whence  it  came  forth — that  is,  the  spotless  purity 
wherein  it  was  created.  And  when  the  soul,  by  interior  illumina- 
tion, perceives  that  God  is  drawing  it  with  such  loving  ardour 
to  Himself,  straightway  there  springs  up  within  it  a corresponding 
fire  of  love  for  its  most  sweet  lord  and  God  ...  it  finds  itself 
stopped  by  sin,  and  unable  to  follow  the  heavenly  attraction — I 
mean  that  look  which  God  casts  on  it  to  bring  it  into  union  with 
Himself : and  this  sense  of  the  grievousness  of  being  kept  from 
beholding  the  Divine  light,  coupled  with  that  instinctive  longing 
which  would  fain  be  without  hindrance  to  follow  the  enticing  look — 
these  two  things,  I say,  make  up  the  pains  of  the  souls  in  purgatory.” 
This  central  passage  plainly  affirms  the  two  main  constituents 
of  purgatory  to  be  precisely  those  of  the  second  night — the 
obstacle  between  the  soul  and  God,  and  the  unsatisfied  love- 
longing for  God.  This  is  repeated  in  another  passage  where  we 
are  explicitly  told  that  the  instinct  by  which  the  soul  “ is  kindled 
and  the  impediments  by  which  it  is  hindered  constitute  its  pur- 
gatory ” (chap.  xi).  This  is  another  instance  of  the  perfect 
agreement  between  the  passages  which  refer  to  the  purification 
of  this  life — such  as  the  above — and  those  whose  reference  is 
directly  to  purgatory,  an  agreement  which  led  to  the  editors’ 
confusion  between  the  two,  a confusion  which  is  itself  one  of  the 
strongest  proofs  of  my  thesis.  The  love-longing  and  its  obstacle 
constitute  St  John’s  “ dark  night  of  loving  fire,”  the  fire  that 
purifies  in  the  darkness  (O.N.,  ii.  12).  In  the  tenth  chapter 
the  Saint  compares  the  action  of  the  fire  on  the  souls  to  that  of 
material  fire  on  gold.  The  fire  burns  away,  she  tells  us,  the  dross 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  293 

of  self.  “ Gold,”  she  says,  “ which  has  been  purified  to  a certain 
point  ceases  to  suffer  any  diminution  from  the  action  of  fire, 
however  great  it  be  ; for  the  fire  does  not  destroy  gold,  but  only 
the  dross  that  it  may  chance  to  have.  In  like  manner  the  Divine 
fire  acts  on  souls  : God  holds  them  in  the  furnace  until  every 
defect  has  been  burnt  away,  and  He  has  brought  them  each  in  his 
own  degree  to  a certain  standard  of  perfection.  Thus  purified, 
they  rest  in  God  without  any  alloy  of  self,  they  become  impassable 
because  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  consumed.”  “ If  in  this  state 
of  purity,”  she  adds,  “ they  were  kept  in  the  fire  they  would  feel 
no  pain,  rather  it  would  be  to  them  a fire  of  Divine  love,  burning 
on  without  opposition,  like  the  fire  of  life  eternal.”  In  this  pass- 
age, apparently  an  interpolated  conflation  of  two  genuine  say- 
ings, there  is  a difficulty  as  to  the  character  of  the  fire.  What  is 
this  fire  here  apparently  external  to  the  soul  ? Not  a material 
fire,  for  that  could  not  become  a fire  of  Divine  love.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  evidently  the  fire  of  love-longing  infused  by  God 
which  is  in  the  saint’s  mind.  For  this  fire  does  continue  when 
purgatory  is  over,  though  no  longer  painful,  since  it  is  fully 
satisfied.  We  cannot  doubt  that  such  was  the  idea  of  St  Catherine. 
The  expression  of  that  idea,  however,  has  been  obscured  and  con- 
fused by  an  attempt  to  conciliate  it  with  the  popular  teaching  of 
an  external  medium  of  torment.1  Alike  in  purgatory  and  in  the 
second  night,  God  acting  on  the  unpurified  soul  is  its  torment, 
not,  of  course,  in  Himself,  but  through  the  unpurified  selfhood  that 
excludes  Him  and  resists  His  action,  as  in  the  beatific  vision  and 
in  mystical  marriage  He  is  its  joy  and  satisfaction.  This  inter- 
pretation is  central  to  the  true  understanding  alike  of  St  Catherine’s 
view  of  purgatory  and  of  that  substantial  identity  between 
purgatory  and  the  second  night  which  it  is  the  aim  of  this  chapter 
to  establish.  Its  correctness  is  witnessed  by  the  passages  on  the 
fire  of  love  which  I have  already  quoted.  The  language  of  St 
Catherine’s  treatise  is  almost  verbally  reproduced  by  St  John 
with  a twofold  reference  to  purgatory  and  the  second  night. 
“ We  learn,”  he  says,  “ by  the  way,  how  souls  suffer  in  purgatory. 
The  fire,  though  it  were  applied,  would  have  no  power  over  them 
if  they  had  no  imperfections  for  which  they  must  suffer,  for  those 
are  the  matter  on  which  that  fire  seizes  ; when  that  matter  is  consumed 
there  is  nothing  more  to  burn.  So  is  it  here  ” (in  the  second  night), 
“ when  all  imperfections  are  removed,  the  suffering  of  the  soul 

1 This  confusion  was  apparently  present  in  the  Saint’s  authentic  saying- 


294  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

ceases,  and  in  its  place  comes  joy  ” ( O.N. , ii.  10).  He  has  just 
established  for  the  Night  of  Spirit  the  identity  of  the  fire  of 
purgation  with  the  fire  of  union.  As  regards  the  object  of 
purgation  St  Catherine’s  treatise  is  inconsistent.  It  contains 
passages  which  tend  to  make  purgatory  a mere  satisfaction,  the 
sold  being  already  free  of  guilt  (e.g.  in  chs.  iii.  and  ix).  These 
passages,  however,  are  opposed  by  others  far  more  central  to 
the  treatise,  in  which  the  object  is  regarded  as  the  purification 
of  stains  that  exclude  the  soul  from  the  full  union  with  God.1 
Surely  we  should  regard  the  passages  which  speak  of  purgatory  as 
a real  purification  of  the  soul  as  the  genuine  dicta  of  St  Catherine. 
Otherwise  her  entire  treatise  would  lose  its  meaning.  The  con- 
tradictory statements  are  but  bungling  attempts  to  reconcile  her 
teaching  with  the  more  external  and  infinitely  less  spiritual  con- 
ception of  purgatory  popular  with  influential  schools  of  theology.2 

The  stains  or  rust  to  be  purged  away  are  sometimes  spoken 
of  as  sin,  sometimes  as  defect,  sometimes  as  bad  habits.  But 
their  true  character  is  he  common  root  of  all  these,  is  that 
limited  extra-godly  selfhood  which  I have  already  dwelt  upon 
at  such  length.  This  is  stated  explicitly  in  the  tenth  chapter 
of  the  Treatise.  “ The  sold  cannot  be  annihilated  so  far  as  it  is 
in  God  ” ( i.e . in  so  far  as  its  life  is  a participation  of  His  infinite 
life,  its  activities  a reception  of  His  Divine  activity),  “but  only  in 
itself  ; and  the  more  it  is  purified,  so  much  the  more  it  annihilates 
self,  till  at  last  it  becomes  quite  pure  and  rests  in  God.  . . . 
Purified,  they  ” (the  souls)  “ rest  in  God  without  any  alloy  of  self  ; 
their  very  being  is  God.”  What  St  John  states  more  or  less 
implicitly  is  here  stated  with  an  explicitness  beyond  possibility 
of  mistake.  Thus  alike  in  its  twofold  purgatorial  operation  and 
in  its  object,  purgatory  as  understood  by  St  Catherine  is  one  with 
the  night  of  spirit  as  described  by  St  John. 

1 In  chap.  ix.  one  and,  the  same  sentence  contains  both  views.  It  tells  us 
that  when  God  “ beholds  the  soul  in  the  purity  wherein  it  was  created  ” He 
purifies  it  with  the  fire  of  love  “ until  He  has  brought  it  ...  to  the  spotless 
purity  wherein  it  was  created.”  We  have  here  an  obvious  instance  of  the  work 
of  a clumsy  redactor.  St  Catherine  could  not  have  held  these  two  absolutely 
irreconcilable  notions. 

2 According  to  Baron  von  Hiigel,  the  corrections  of  the  compilers  may  be 
referred  to  three  heads:  (i)  no  guilt  is  purged  in  purgatory;  (2)  the  punish- 
ment of  purgatory  is  not  truly  purgative  but  merely  and  solely  vindictive  and 
satisfactory;  (3)  it  is  therefore  static,  not  progressive,  the  soul  being  equally 
pure  from  first  to  last  (p.  448).  My  own  examination  of  the  7 realise  had 
already  led  me  towards  this  conclusion. 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  295 

Our  conclusion  as  to  the  substantial  identity  of  both  is  sup- 
ported by  the  consideration  that  mystical  union,  including  its 
purgative  degrees,  is  but  a stage  in  the  development  of  sanctifying 
grace  on  its  way  to  become  glory.  In  all  the  saved  sanctifying 
grace  must,  as  we  saw,  follow  in  substance  the  same  development 
to  the  same  goal.  Therefore  it  must  effect  a purification  identical 
in  its  operation  and  object  with  the  mystical  purgation.  This 
purification,  however,  is  purgatory.  Therefore  purgatory  and 
the  mystical  purification  are  essentially  one  and  the  same 
purification. 

There  is  thus  a unity  and  continuity  in  the  process  of  sanctifi- 
cation on  both  sides  of  the  grave.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  there 
is  in  purgatory  no  increase  of  sanctifying  grace.  This  fact,  how- 
ever, does  not  mean  that  the  purgatorial  process  is  not  an  effect  of 
sanctifying  grace  and  is  therefore  in  no  sense  whatever  a sanctifi- 
cation. It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  like  the  mystical  night  on  earth,  a 
destruction  by  God,  especially  immanent  in  the  soul  through  grace, 
of  the  natural  selfhood  which  opposes  full  union  with  Himself.  As 
this  barrier  is  destroyed,  sanctifying  grace  penetrates  and  takes 
possession  of  the  soul,  thereby  bringing  the  soul  into  complete 
subjection  to  God,  and  thus  rendering  all  its  life  and  activity, 
indeed  its  inmost  centre,  the  receptacle  of  the  Divine  Life  and 
Being  which  is  God  Himself.  Therefore  purgatory  undoubtedly 
sanctifies  the  soul  in  the  sense  of  rendering  it  wholly  penetrated 
by  grace  and  obedient  to  grace.  On  the  other  hand,  the  soul  in 
purgatory  is  no  longer  free,  like  the  mystic  on  earth,  to  escape  the 
purifying  pain  by  resistance  to  the  Divine  operation.  Therefore, 
unlike  the  latter,  he  does  not  merit  by  his  submission  to  the  pro- 
cess, and  since  he  does  not  merit,  his  sanctifying  grace  does  not 
increase  in  amount  as  it  does  in  the  mystical  night.  When  the 
soul  emerges  from  the  mystical  night,  not  only  is  it  wholly 
possessed  by  grace  and  by  God  through  grace,  but  that  grace  and 
the  degree  of  glory  that  must  correspond  with  it  hereafter  have 
been  enormously  augmented  during  the  purification.  When, 
however,  the  soul  emerges  from  purgatory,  no  such  augmentation 
has  taken  place.  For  that  soul  the  purification  has  been  the 
perfect  penetration  and  possession  of  his  soul  by  a grace  whose 
positive  amount  or  degree  has  remained  the  same  throughout.1 
Imagine  a man  possessed  of  a high  degree  of  musical  or  dramatic 
sensibility  but  incapable  of  its  expression.  Suppose  him  to  be 

1 See  von  Hiigel,  vol.  ii.,  p.  243. 


296  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

gradually  given  complete  power  of  expression,  though  his  degree 
of  aesthetic  sensibility  remains  the  same.  This  supposition  will 
illustrate  for  us  the  sanctification  of  purgatory  without  increase  of 
sanctifying  grace.  The  soul’s  capacity  of  participation  in  the 
Divine  will  and  knowledge,  in  the  life  of  God,  the  fundamental 
relationship  of  the  will  to  God,  its  strength  of  love,  or  rather  its 
power  of  receiving  the  Divine  love,  the  depths  to  which  that  soul’s 
knowledge  can  penetrate  the  Divine  Being,  these  are  the  same  when 
that  soul  leaves  as  when  it  entered  purgatory.  Their  actualisation, 
however,  hindered  hitherto  by  the  natural  selfhood  destroyed  in 
purgatory,  and  which  was  perhaps  very  slight  at  death,  has  now, 
when  the  work  of  purification  has  been  fully  accomplished,  become 
full  and  continuous.  This  is  the  perfect  accomplishment  of  the 
work  of  sanctifying  grace,  the  complete  sanctification  of  the  soul. 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  difference  between  this  life  and  the 
next  as  regards  the  positive  augmentation  of  sanctifying  grace 
leaves  unaffected  the  continuity  of  the  sanctifying  process,  regarded 
as  the  progressive  possession  of  the  soul  by  God  through  the  gradual 
destruction  of  the  obstacles  to  that  possession.  This  gradual 
purgation  of  the  soul  from  its  natural  selfhood  and  its  results  is 
one  continuous  process  in  which  death  usually  occurs  at  an  early 
stage,  owing  in  great  measure  to  failure  to  correspond  with  grace. 
But  this  is  not  always  the  case.  The  mystics  have  reached  before 
death  stages  usually  reserved  for  the  life  to  come.  From  the 
mystics,  therefore,  we  can  learn  something  of  the  nature  of  these 
later  stages.  This  knowledge  enables  us  to  look  forward  to  our 
own  personal  entrance  into  these  stages  after  death  as  a journey 
not  by  a road  wholly  unknown,  but  along  a way  already  trodden 
here  on  earth  by  a small  band  of  pioneers.  Surely  it  is  just  that 
knowledge  which  makes  all  the  difference.  When  we  are  faced 
ourselves  with  death,  or  when  our  dear  ones  are  laid  in  the  grave, 
great  indeed  is  our  painful  longing  for  some  information  about  the 
life  beyond  the  tomb,  and  our  abhorrence  of  that  dark  abyss  of 
ignorance  which  hides  the  world  of  the  departed.  We  trust  that 
our  dear  one  is  saved  and  hope  for  our  own  salvation.  We  have 
every  ground  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  think  that  he  or  she  is  in 
purgatory  and  that  we  shall  be  placed  there  ourselves  on  leaving 
this  world.  Purgatory,  however,  is  only  too  often  but  a name. 
Because  we  cannot  imagine  its  conditions,  it  is  a terror  of  the  dark- 
ness, often  so  vague  as  to  be  all  but  a complete  unreality.  The 
conclusion  just  reached  should  do  much  to  make  it  a reality,  and 


PURGATORY  & PASSIVE  NIGHT  OF  SPIRIT  297 

to  satisfy  this  longing  for  knowledge  of  a state  in  which  many 
whom  we  love  are  now,  where  we  expect  ourselves  to  be  hereafter. 
Certainly  it  provides  no  sensible  picture,  for  there  can  be  no 
sensible  picture  of  a spiritual  state.  Nor  does  it  give  us  that 
intimate  knowledge  of  the  purgatorial  purification  which  can  be 
possessed  only  by  those  who,  like  St  Catherine  of  Genoa  and  St 
John  of  the  Cross,  have  had  personal  experience  of  the  mystical 
purgation.  It  does,  however,  give  us  indications,  however  in- 
adequate, of  the  nature  of  purgatory,  ideas  which  enable  our 
understanding  to  apprehend  to  some  slight  degree  at  least  its 
reality  and  necessity.  We  come  also  to  understand,  as  never 
before,  that  to  the  just  the  life  beyond  the  grave  is  but  the  fulfil- 
ment of  this  present  life,  the  fructification  of  a plant  sown  here 
below.  We  realise  that  our  dead  in  purgatory  have  not  passed 
into  a state  almost  unknowable  to  us  who  are  left  on  earth, 
for  we  know  that  it  is  the  state  which  souls  have  passed 
through  here  on  earth.  To  know  this  is  to  know  that  the 
two  worlds  of  time  and  eternity  are  divided  more  sharply  by 
baptism 1 than  by  death,  that  life  eternal  has  already  begun 
on  earth,  for  some  even  consciously.  In  the  light  of  this 
knowledge  the  after-life  will  no  longer  seem,  as  at  times  we  are 
tempted  to  regard  it,  a picture  cast  by  the  magic  lantern  of 
imagination  and  desire  on  the  emptiness  of  the  void.  Rather  will 
it  be  to  us  the  one  solid  reality  that  underlies  the  comparative 
nonentity  of  this  material  world,  a reality  whose  complete  mani- 
festation is  indeed  reserved  for  the  life  to  come,  but  which  has 
been  manifested  even  in  this  present  life,  and  of  which  the 
mystics  have  possessed  before  death  an  experience  which  for 
most  of  us  is  delayed  till  death  is  past.  The  realisation  of 
this  truth  robs  death  of  its  bitterest  terror — the  terror  of  the 
unknown. 


Appendix 

Before  I pass  on  to  the  chapter  which  deals  with  mystical 
marriage  I would  say  a word  on  a matter  which  must  have 
occurred  to  some  at  least  of  my  readers — namely,  the  likeness 
which  cannot  fail  to  present  itself  between  the  dereliction  of  the 

1 Not  always  the  sacrament.  For  many  the  supernatural  life  begins  with  a 
baptism  of  desire,  and  what  exactly  is  requisite  for  that  baptism  is  known  with 
any  certainty  to  God  alone. 


298  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

second  night  and  the  dereliction  of  Our  Lord  on  the  Cross.  On 
this  subject,  so  deeply  mysterious,  there  can  be  no  certainty  nor 
even  confident  opinion.  We  can  but  make  conjectures  which  we 
know  to  be  utterly  inadequate  and  quite  probably  false.  Such 
conjectures,  however,  may  help  us  to  realise,  as  perhaps  we  had 
not  previously  realised,  the  depth  of  dread  mystery  which  con- 
stituted this  central  Passion  of  Our  Lord,  a passion  in  comparison 
with  which  His  physical  passion  in  all  its  horror  and  cruelty  was 
as  nothing.  My  conjecture  is  then  this,  that  Our  Lord’s  Human 
Soul  was  temporarily  excluded  from  the  fruition  of  His  personal 
Union  with  God  by  the  obstacle  consciously  realised,  not,  indeed, 
of  personal  sin,  imperfection  or  natural  selfhood,  such,  of  course, 
being  non-existent,  but  of  the  sin,  imperfection  and  natural 
un regenerate  or  grace-resisting  selfhood  of  fallen  humanity  as  a 
whole,  with  which  humanity  Our  Lord  as  the  second  Adam  had 
mystically  identified  Himself.  In  virtue  of  this  identity,  that 
mass  of  sinful,  God-excluding  selfhood  came  between  Our  Lord’s 
Human  consciousness  and  the  Godhead  with  Whom  His  Humanity 
was  personally  one,  and  by  its  limitation  shut  off  His  Soul  from  Its 
Divine  fruition.  Moreover,  in  virtue  of  this  same  identification 
Our  Lord’s  Soul  would,  we  may  conjecture,  have  so  experienced 
the  essential  and  necessary  opposition  between  God  and  this  sinful 
selfhood  with  which  Our  Lord  had  in  some  sense  identified  Him- 
self as  to  be  conscious  of  a Divine  dereliction.1  Since,  however, 
Our  Lord  was  one  Person  with  God,  full  fruition  of  the  Godhead 
was  His  right.  By  abandoning  that  right  in  this  freely  assumed 
dereliction  He  satisfied  as  Our  second  Head  and  Representative 
for  the  rebellion  against  God  of  our  first  head  and  representative. 
If  this  conjecture  be  true,  the  dereliction  of  Our  Saviour  was  not 
indeed  like  Purgatory,  substantially  identical  with  the  second  night, 
but  was  analogous  to  it.  By  means  of  that  analogy  we  are  able 
to  contemplate  the  surface  at  least  of  a mystery  whose  depths  are 
perhaps  impenetrable  by  any  created  intelligence. 

1 In  this  passage  I follow,  as  I believe  I am  at  full  liberty  to  do,  those  theo- 
logians, though  the  minority,  who  teach  that  during  our  Lord’s  dereliction  His 
Human  Soul  did  not  enjoy  the  Beatific  Vision. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION:  OR  MYSTICAL  MARRIAGE 

His  pale,  wound-worn  limbs 
Fell  from  Prometheus,  and  the  azure  night 
Grew  radiant  with  the  glory  of  that  form 
Which  lives  unchanged  within,  and  his  voice  fell 
Like  music  which  makes  giddy  the  dim  brain, 

Faint  with  intoxication  of  keen  joy. 

“ Sister  of  her  whose  footsteps  pave  the  world 
With  loveliness — more  fair  than  aught  but  her 
Whose  shadow  thou  art — lift  thine  eyes  on  me.” 

I lifted  them : the  overpowering  light 
Of  that  immortal  shape  zvas  shadowed  o'er 
By  love  ; which,  from  his  so  ft  and  flowing  limbs 
And  passion-parted  lips,  and  keen,  faint  eyes 
Steamed  forth  like  vaporous  fire,  an  atmosphere 
Which  zvrapped  me  in  its  all-dissolving  power. 

As  the  zvarm  cether  of  the  morning  sun 

Wraps  ere  it  drinks  some  clo  ud  of  wandering  dew. 

I sazc  not,  heard  not,  moved  not,  only  felt 
His  presence  flow  and  mingle  with  my  blood 
Till  it  became  his  life,  and  his  grew  mine, 

And  I was  thus  absorbed,  until  it  passed, 

And  like  the  vapours  when  the  sun  sinks  dozen, 

Gathering  again  in  drops  upon  the  pines. 

And  tremulous  as  they,  in  the  deep  night 
My  being  was  condensed. 

Shelley, 

Prometheus  Unbound,  Act  II.,  sc.  i. 

Jam  hierns  transiit,  imber  abiit  et  recessit.  Flores  apparuerunt 
in  terra  nostra : vox  turturis  audita  est.  Surge,  arnica  mea, 
speciosa  mea,  et  veni. 

Dilectus  meus  mihi,  et  ego  illi,  qui  pascitur  inter  lilia. 

Et  resurrexit. 

Ego  vivo,  sed  jam,  non  ego,  sed  vivit  in  me  Christus. 

399 


300  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Not  immediately  on  emerging  from  the  darkness  of  the  second 
night  is  the  happy  soul  introduced  into  the  fulness  of  blazing  light 
which  is  that  final  stage  known  as  the  mystical  or  spiritual  mar- 
riage or  as  the  transforming  union.  The  rays  of  the  divine  Sun 
are  tempered  to  its  weakness  by  the  mystical  Betrothal.  This 
betrothal  differs  apparently  from  mystical  marriage  by  its  inter- 
mittence  and  by  a certain  rebellion  which  still  persists  of  the 
powers  of  sense  ( Canticle , st.  17,  note).  Its  positive  character 
is  a foretaste  of  the  marriage  to  come.  It  is  essentially  a state 
intermediate  between  ecstasy  and  mystical  marriage — the  act  of 
the  latter  without  its  permanent  habit  (see  below).  It  is 
indeed  probable  that  souls  not  called  in  this  life  to  the  transform- 
ing union  obtain  this  betrothal  without  having  fully  passed 
through  the  night  of  spirit.  The  scope  of  this  work  does  not 
demand  my  lingering  over  this  intermediate  stage.  My  object  is 
rather  to  give  the  reader  some  indication  of  the  final  stage  of  the 
mystical  way,  the  fullest  and  most  perfect  form  of  the  mystical 
union,  the  marriage  itself.  Here  above  all  is  it  essential  to  bear 
well  in  mind  that  we  cannot  possibly  understand  what  such  a 
state  is  in  its  inner  being  to  those  blessed  few  who  have  experi- 
enced it  themselves.  With  far  better  reason  might  an  old  bachelor 
who  had  never  fallen  in  love  hope  to  present  an  adequate  descrip- 
tion of  that  experience,  and  its  crown,  betrothal  and  marriage. 
It  would  be  ludicrous  to  suppose  that  such  an  one  could  describe 
the  sensations  of  the  lover  or  the  beloved,  could  reproduce  the 
little  nuances  of  speech,  so  charged  with  hidden  meaning,  the 
gestures  and  tokens  that  at  once  express  and  conceal  the  avowal 
of  love  and  its  return,  could  make  his  readers  enter  into  the  fears 
and  hopes,  the  sorrows  and  the  joys  of  that  most  intimate  union  of 
human  hearts.  Infinitely  more  ludicrous  would  it  be  for  me  to 
undertake  to  initiate  my  readers  into  the  secrets  of  the  spiritual 
marriage  wherein  the  Divine  Lover  is  united  so  intimately  with 
the  soul  for  whose  love  He  has  paid  so  dear.  Even  if  a writer 
possessed  the  experience  himself,  as  St  John  of  the  Cross  possessed 
it,  and  St  Teresa,  when  she  wrote  her  Interior  Castle,  he  could  not 
reveal  that  experience  to  others  who  have  never  enjoyed  it  them- 
selves. Secretum  meum  mihi.  If  that  innate  desire  of  self- 
expression  which  is  an  integral  part  of  human  nature  should  urge 
him  to  speak  or  write  his  love  story,  he  could  but  pour  forth 
metaphors  and  images  infinitely  inadequate  to  the  reality.  This 
indeed  is  largely  true  even  of  human  love,  infinitely  more  true  of 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  301 

Divine.  St  John,  who  in  his  writings  on  the  purgative  way 
attempted  a more  or  less  scientific  exposition,  abandons  even  the 
attempt  when  he  comes  to  write  of  the  final  union.  He  falls  back 
on  art  pure  and  simple,  and  clothes  the  experience  he  would  fain 
reveal  with  a rich  garment  of  sensible  figures.  He  paraphrases 
that  inspired  poem  of  spiritual  passion,  that  treasure-house  of 
luxuriant  oriental  imagery,  the  Song  of  Songs. 

If  this  be  so,  is  not  this  chapter  self-condemned  ? Were  it  not 
better  to  close  the  book  with  that  silence  which  is  the  most  eloquent 
expression  of  the  inexpressible  ? Such  silence  must  indeed  close 
every  effort  to  follow  the  soul  on  her  God  ward  flight.  It  should, 
however,  be  the  silence  not  of  blank  ignorance,  but  of  thoughts 
that  lie  too  deep  for  words,  or,  more  truly,  of  intuitions  that  lie 
too  deep  for  clear  concepts,  of  a vision  overwhelmed  by  the  veiled 
revelation  of  the  infinite.  It  must  be  the  spiritual  counterpart 
of  that  silence,  sung  by  the  poet,  of  Cortez  and  his  band  when  first 
from  the  brow  of  the  Darien  peak  they  beheld  the  waters  of  an 
unknown  ocean  far  stretching  to  the  western  horizon.  Such  a 
silence  can  only  be  ours  if  we  can  ascend  some  peak  of  thought  or 
insight  from  whence  we  catch  a distant  glimpse  of  the  ocean  which 
awaits  the  souls  of  the  elect,  the  boundless  and  fathomless  ocean 
of  the  Triune  Godhead.  An  attentive  study  of  the  descriptions  of 
the  transforming  union  given  by  such  mystics  as  St  John  will  be 
the  spiritual  mountain  peak,  from  whence  we  may  view  that 
ocean,  or,  if  you  prefer  another  simile,  the  promised  land  outspread 
from  Dan  to  Beersaba,  whose  fertile  valleys  and  pastures  green,  with 
their  refreshment  of  cool  streams,  shall  be  our  eternal  dwelling- 
place  if  we  are  faithful  till  death.  Even  the  purely  external 
indication  afforded  by  such  study  will  be  sufficient,  not,  indeed, 
to  tell  us  what  is  perfect  union  with  God,  whether  in  the  unveiled 
vision  of  heaven  or  in  the  faith- veiled  transforming  union  of  earth, 
but  to  make  us  realise  its  existence,  that  it  truly  is,  and  that  it 
infinitely  exceeds  all  that  our  study  can  hint.  This  is  the  value 
of  external  schematic  notions  which  are  at  best  but  a diagram 
representing  the  skeleton  of  a living  body.  The  diagram  makes 
us  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  living  reality  and  indicates  to  us 
its  infinitely  pre-eminent  possession  of  all  that  is  of  positive  value 
alike  in  the  diagrammatic  representation  and  in  that  which  we 
clearly  apprehend  by  its  means.  The  external  knowledge  of  the 
complete  mystical  union  which  we  may  gather  from  the  mystical 
writers  should  leave  on  our  souls  an  impression  which  may  be 


302  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

symbolised  by  the  impression  received  by  Crusoe  from  his  dis- 
covery of  the  footprint  in  the  sand.  That  footprint  indicated  to 
him  the  presence  in  his  island,  hitherto  imagined  as  inhabited 
only  by  plant  and  animal  life,  of  a being  of  a superior  order. 
Even  so  will  the  study  of  the  mystics’  description  of  the  trans- 
forming union  reveal  to  us  the  presence  in  human  experience  of  a 
union  with  God  so  intimate  that  we  could  not  otherwise  have 
dreamt  of  its  possibility.  It  will  make  us  realise  the  existence  of 
spiritual  planes  attainable  here  on  earth,  of  a Divinity  that  has 
been  man’s  possession  even  before  death,  which  had  hitherto  been 
wholly  unsuspected.  If  my  discussion  of  mystical  marriage  helps 
to  effect  this  for  even  one  reader  my  labour  will  have  been  amply 
rewarded. 

The  state  of  spiritual  marriage  lias  been  treated  by  St  John 
in  the  above-mentioned  paraphrase  of  the  Song  of  Songs — The 
Spiritual  Canticle  of  the  Soul — and  in  The  Living  Flame  of  Love, 
which  latter  treatise  is  almost  wholly  devoted  to  it.  It  is  also 
the  subject  of  Mother  Cecilia’s  treatises  entitled  respectively  The 
Transformation  of  the  Soul  in  (to)  God  and  The  Union  of  the  Soul 
with  God,  although  she  only  once  gives  it  the  name  of  spiiitual 
marriage.  It  is  on  these  treatises  that  my  account  is  based. 

It  will  be  well  to  begin  with  a word  of  warning  which  is  given 
by  Pere  Poulain.1  Pere  Poulain  warns  his  readers  not  to  confuse 
the  mystical  state  termed  spiritual  marriage  with  those  sensible 
marriage  ceremonies  enacted  in  ecstatic  vision  between  the  soul 
and  Jesus  Christ  of  which  we  read  in  the  lives  of  the  saints.  These 
ceremonies,  consisting  usually  in  the  gift  of  a ring  by  Jesus,  some- 
times precede  and  sometimes  accompany  the  conclusion  of  the  true 
spiritual  marriage.  Sometimes  they  occur  when  that  marriage 
has  been  already  accomplished,  on  the  occasion  of  an  increase  of 
the  mystical  union. 

Such  a symbolic  ceremony  was  that  recorded  in  the  Life  of  St 
Catherine  of  Siena,  wherein  she  received  a wedding  ring  from  the 
Infant  Jesus  ; such,  also,  a similar  vision  of  Gemma  Galgani. 
Another  modern  instance  is  the  double  ceremony  in  which  Sister 
Gertrude  Mary  was  wedded  first  to  the  Word,  then  a few  weeks 
later  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here,  however,  there  was  no  gift  of  a 
ring.  It  is  clear  that  Sister  Gertrude  could  not  have  entered  the 
state  of  spiritual  marriage  on  both  occasions.  The  latter  ceremony 
therefore  was  probably  on  the  occasion  of  an  increase  in  the 

1 Les  Graces  d'Oraison,  xiv.  22. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  303 

marriage  union  already  effected.  Many,  on  the  other  hand,  enter 
this  final  state  of  mystic  union  without  any  such  phenomenal 
accompaniment.  Moreover,  a far  greater  number  of  souls  reach 
mystical  marriage  than  the  minute  handful  who  have  received  a 
nuptial  vision.1  Indeed  St  John  of  the  Cross  himself  never 
experienced  any  such  vision. 

It  is  indeed  evident  that,  whatever  be  their  significance  and 
degree  of  objectivity,  such  sensible  or  imaginary  phenomena  are 
but  symbols  of  a spiritual  reality,  which  reality  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  no  means  identical  wherever  there  is  identity  of  external 
symbolism.  Nuptial  symbolism  is,  moreover,  of  more  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  case  of  feminine  than  of  masculine  mystics,  and 
is  at  least  in  part  conditioned  by  the  natural  character  of  the 
recipient  soul.  Souls  inclined  to  represent  their  spiritual  experi- 
ence by  sensible  images  are  more  likely  subjects  of  such  visions 
than  others  of  a less  imaginative  type.  For  although  these  visions 
are  by  no  means  wholly  subjective,  they  postulate,  like  similar 
phenomena,  the  co-operation  of  a certain  subjective  disposition 
in  their  recipient.  The  true  mystical  marriage  is  a purely  spiritual 
union  effected  in  the  very  centre  of  the  soul,  a region  far  removed 
from  sense-derived  images. 

We  must  also  keep  in  mind  that,  since  the  term  marriage  is 
itself  a symbol  derived  from  the  world  of  sense,  it  can  be  applied 
to  various  degrees  of  the  soul’s  union  with  God.  Fr.  Terrien,  S.J., 
devotes  to  this  matter  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  fifth  book  of  his 
theology  of  sanctifying  grace,  La  Grace  et  la  Gloire.  ITe  there 
points  out  that  the  nuptial  symbol  is  justly  applicable  and  is,  in 
fact,  applied  to  (1)  the  union  of  the  Church  as  a whole  with  Christ ; 
(2)  the  union  with  Christ  of  every  soul  in  the  state  of  grace.;  (3) 
the  special  union  of  virgins  with  Christ  and  in  particular  of  nuns  ; 
(4)  the  spiritual  marriage  of  the  mystics.  To  these  we  may  add 
the  sacramental  union  of  the  communicant  with  the  Sacred 
Humanity,  to  which,  as  Fr.  Terrien  points  out  in  a later  chapter, 
the  nuptial  symbolism  has  also  been  applied.  Fr.  Terrien  enumer- 
ates the  characters  which  justify  the  use  of  this  symbol  to  describe 
the  union  with  Christ  of  every  soul  in  a state  of  grace.  We  should 
observe  that  these  characters  are  common  in  different  degrees  and 
modes  to  all  the  unions  enumerated  above.  They  are  (1)  mutual 
love — that  is,  union  of  wills  ; (2)  fidelity,  an  indissolubility  either 

1 Dr  Imbert,  according  to  P6re  Poulain  (loc.  cit.),  enumerates  seventy-seven 
instances  of  these  bridal  visions. 


304  TIIE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

relative  or  absolute  ; and  (3)  fruitfulness — that  is  the  production 
of  supernatural  works,  indeed  of  a supernatural  life.  It  is  there- 
fore plain  that  the  mere  use  of  nuptial  terminology  and  images  is 
insufficient  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  union  thus 
described. 

After  these  two  preliminary  warnings  there  is  another  question 
that  must  be  solved  before  we  enter  on  our  inquiry  into  the  nature 
of  mystical  marriage — namely,  the  question  who  in  this  marriage 
is  the  bridegroom  of  the  soul.  Hitherto  we  have  spoken  of  union 
between  the  soul  and  God.  Fr.  Terrien,  as  we  saw,  speaks  of  the 
union  between  the  soul  and  Christ.  Indeed  St  Paul  constantly 
speaks  of  the  grace-union  as  a union  with  Christ,  a participation 
of  Christ’s  life,  an  incorporation  into  Christ’s  body,  a life  in 
Christ.*  It  is,  however,  evident  that  in  mystical  marriage  the 
bridegroom  is  not  the  Sacred  Humanity,  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 
It  may  be  that  the  union  is  ushered  in  by  a symbolical  marriage 
ceremony  with  Jesus,  but  the  union  itself  is  not  directly  referable 
to  Him  as  man.  For  the  Sacred  Humanity  is  as  we  know  present 
only  in  heaven  and  in  the  Most  Blessed  Sacrament.  Therefore 
it  is  not  present  in  the  soul  of  the  mystic.1  Indeed  it  is  im- 
possible that  His  body  could  be  present  in  the  soul,  and  His  soul 
is  never  where  His  body  is  not,  for  they  are  inseparable.  The 
mystics  do,  however,  often  speak  of  the  spiritual  marriage  as 
contracted  with  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Divine 
Word.  In  the  Spiritual  Canticle  the  Bridegroom  is  regarded  as  the 
Word— that  is,  Christ  in  His  Godhead — and  to  this  state  St  John 
applies  the  texts  of  St  Paul  : “ I live,  now  not  I but  Christ  liveth 
in  me  ” and  “ He  that  cleaveth  to  the  Lord  ” (Jesus  Christ)  “ is 
one  spirit.”  2 Other  passages,  however,  speak  of  union  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  3 or  with  the  Blessed  Trinity.  Sister  Gertrude  Mary 
speaks  of  a special  union  with  the  Word,  and  also  of  a special 
union  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Mother  Cecilia  speaks  more  gener- 
ally of  God.  We  may  surely  draw  the  conclusion  that  the 
Bridegroom  is  the  Trinity— the  one  God  in  three  Persons.  It  is 
a maxim  of  theology  that  the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  have  every- 
thing in  common  save  the  relations  which  constitute  their  personal 


1 The  singular  opinion  of  Cardinal  Cienfuegos  that  the  human  Soul  of  Jesus 
is  habitually  present  in  the  soul  of  the  communicant  is  surely  as  untenable  as  it  is 
universally  rejected. 

2 E.g.,  Living  Flame,  st.  i. 

3 Spiyitual  Canticle,  st.  22. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  305 

distinction,  and  that  therefore  every  Divine  operation  whose  term 
or  end  is  a creature — that  is,  a term  external  to  the  Godhead — is 
common  to  the  three  Persons.  But  the  union  of  the  soul  with 
God  through  grace  is  a Divine  work  whose  term  is  the  created 
soul,  hence  this  work  in  all  its  degrees  and  modes  must  be  common 
to  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity.1  It  is  therefore  the  Triune 
God  Who  is  the  Bridegroom  in  the  mystical  marriage.  If  St 
John  and  others  seem  to  refer  that  union  especially  to  the  Second 
Person,  the  reason  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  the  Sacred 
Humanity  that  is  one  person  with  the  Word  is  the  cause  and  in 
a large  degree  the  means  whereby  that  union  has  been  attained 
by  the  soul ; and,  moreover,  the  closer  our  union  with  God,  the 
closer  are  we  united,  though  in  a different  and  less  intimate  fashion, 
with  the  Humanity  that  is  in  hypostatical  union  with  God. 
Indeed  it  is  in  virtue  and  in  measure  of  our  incorporation  into 
the  mystical  body  of  the  Word  Incarnate  and  Glorified  that  we 
are  united  with  God  in  the  union  of  grace  and  mystical  experience, 
so  that  the  measure  of  our  supernatural  union  with  God  is  the 
measure  of  our  union  with  Christ  and  our  incorporation  into  His 
Body.  The  other  reason  for  this  appropriation  is  that  the  Word 
in  virtue  of  His  procession  from  the  Divine  self-understanding  is 
the  manifestation  and  representation  of  God  (“  the  express  image 
of  His  Person  ”).  In  this  transforming  union  the  mystic  possesses 
a special  consciousness  of  God  which  may  be  regarded  as  His 
manifestation  and  representation  in  the  soul,  though  indeed  it  is 
a consciousness  of  the  Godhead  possessed  in  common  by  the  three 
Persons.  Therefore,  regarded  under  this  aspect,  the  union  is 
appropriated  to  the  Word,  as  it  is  to  the  Holy  Ghost  under  its 
aspect  of  will-union.  Consequently  when  St  John  is  regarding 
mystical  marriage  in  its  aspect  of  intuition  he  refers  it  to  the  Word  ; 
when,  however,  he  has  chiefly  in  view  the  will-union  he  refers  it  to 
the  Holy  Ghost.  That  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  the  true  Bridegroom 
of  this  nuptial  union  is  indeed  stated  explicitly  in  The  Living 
Flame.  “ We  should  not  regard  it  as  incredible  . . . that  the 
promise  of  the  Son  of  God  should  be  accomplished  in  this  life  in 
a faithful  soul — namely,  that  if  any  man  should  love  Him,  the 

1 Petavius,  however,  postulated  a special  union  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
contrary  is  the  opinion  most  generally  received  by  theologians.  Nevertheless 
the  language  of  Scripture  does  seem  in  favour  of  the  Petavian  doctrine.  Perhaps 
the  real  difference  is  unimportant.  When  the  Holy  Ghost  inhabits  the  soul 
the  Blessed  Trinity  inhabits  it — whether  or  no  the  inhabitation  be  in  its  mode 
effected  through  the  Third  Person  as  such. 

U 


306  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Most  Holy  Trinity  would  enter  into  that  soul,  and  would  dwell 
within  it,  by  a divine  illumination  of  the  understanding  in  the 
wisdom  of  the  Son,  a delectation  of  the  will  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  a powerful  and  mighty  absorption  of  the  soul  itself  in  the 
abyss  of  the  Father’s  sweetness  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  1).  If 
possible,  even  clearer  is  the  following  passage : — “ The  soul  explains 
that  the  Three  Pei  sons  of  the  Most  Holy  Trinity,  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  they  who  accomplish  in  the  soul  this 
Divine  work  of  union.  Therefore  the  hand,  the  wound  and  the 
touch  are  in  substance  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  these  names 
are  only  employed  to  express  effects  peculiar  to  each.  The  wound 
is  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  hand  is  the  Father,  and  the  touch  is  the 
Son.  Thus  the  soul  magnifies  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  extolling  these  three  great  graces  and  gifts  which  they 
accomplish  in  it,  in  that  they  have  changed  its  death  into  life, 
by  transforming  it  into  Themselves.”  He  proceeds  to  explain 
that  the  wound  is  love — the  will-union  ; the  touch  is  a taste  of  the 
Divine  Wisdom,  the  intuition  of  the  consciousness,  and  the  hand 
is  the  transformation  of  the  central  substance  or  ego  out  of  its 
natural  selfhood  to  be  henceforward  a recipient  and  participator 
of  the  infinite  Godhead.  He  then  concludes  : “ Although  the 
Three  Persons  are  here  referred  to  severally  on  account  of  the 
special  properties  of  these  three  effects,  the  soul  addresses  itself 
to  the  Unity,  saying  Thou  hast  changed  it  into  life,  for  the  Three 
Divine  Persons  co-operate,  and  so  the  entire  operation  is  attributed 
to  Each  and  to  All  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  2). 

For  further  explanation  of  this  appropriation  I refer  the  reader 
to  Fr.  Terrien’s  work  on  grace,1  or  indeed  to  any  theological  text- 
book. Suffice  it  here  to  realise  that  whatever  the  language  of 
St  John  or  other  mystics  may  at  times  suggest,  the  mystical 
marriage  is  quite  simply  a state  of  extraordinary  union  between 
the  soul  and  God — the  one  Godhead  in  three  Persons. 

When  the  mystics  such  as  St  John  and  Mother  Cecilia  treat 
of  spiritual  marriage,  they  describe  it  chiefly  by  means  of  similes 
or  by  the  use  of  expressions  susceptible  of  very  various  inter- 
pretations. It  is  only  by  comparison  of  one  simile  with  another, 
and  of  one  expression  with  another,  that  a certain  more  or  less 
definite  notion  arises  in  the  mind.  This  notion  is  not  indeed 
an  apprehension  of  what  the  mystical  marriage  is,  as  a conscious 
state  of  spiritual  experience,  but  an  external  indication  of  the 

1 Book  V.,  chap.  i. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  807 

relationship  between  the  soul  and  God  which  effects  and  conditions 
that  experience.  I will  try  to  state  what  the  notion  is  which  has 
risen  in  my  mind  after  careful  study  of  the  descriptions  given  by 
St  John  and  by  Mother  Cecilia.  From  that  standpoint  I will 
proceed  to  examine  the  language  of  St  John  and  Mother  Cecilia 
by  which  that  notion  was  originally  suggested  to  me.  My  notion 
is  this.  The  mystical  marriage  or  transforming  union  is  a state 
of  habitual  possession  by  God  of  the  centre  of  the  soul — that  is, 
the  root  of  the  will  and  cognition,  especially  the  root  of  the  will 
— together  with  an  habitual  consciousness  of  the  presence  of 
God  in  the  centre  of  the  soul,  and  of  his  possession  of  that 
centre.1 

When  this  habitual  union  is  realised  in  act,  that  act  is  a Divine 
influx  into  or  mol  ion  of  the  central  functions  of  the  soul,  volition, 
cognition  and  theii  concomitant  affection  from  the  centre  of 
which  He  is  in  habitual  possession.  The  effect  of  that  influx 
and  motion  is  that,  while  the  transforming  union  is  thus  in  act, 
the  activities  of  the  soul  subject  to  this  influx  and  motion  are 
receptacles  of  the  Divine  activity,  which  is  God  Himself,  so  that 
the  soul  partakes  in  this  activity.  Its  volition  is  then  the  Divine 
volition  received  by  its  volition,  its  cognition  is  similarly  the 
Divine  self-knowledge  received  in  its  cognition,  though  this 
participation  is  of  necessity  veiled  so  long  as  this  bodily  life 
continues.  As  the  transforming  union  increases,  as  it  does 
increase  indefinitely  till  death,  it  comes  ever  more  frequently  and 
more  powerfully  into  act.  Previously  to  the  transforming  union 
the  Divine  operation  upon  the  activities  of  the  soul  was  external 
to  them.  Now  God  acts  in  and  through  them.  For  hence- 
forward these  activities  are,  when  the  union  is  in  act,  participations 
or  receptions  of  the  Divine  operation.  Previously  to  the  mystical 
marriage  there  was  no  habitual  possession  of  the  centre  2 by  God 
and  therefore  no  habitual  consciousness  of  that  possession — that 
is  to  say,  no  habitual  consciousness  of  His  possessing  Presence  in 

1 According  to  Pere  Poulain,  an  habitual  consciousness  of  the  Divine  Presence 
may  precede  the  Transforming  union.  He  instances  St  Teresa  (Les  Graces 
d'Oraison,  p.  22).  If  this  be  the  case,  this  habitual  consciousness  would  be, 
however,  a consciousness  of  God’s  presence  to  the  centre,  not  of  His  intrinsic 
possession  of  the  centre  as  the  new  principle  of  the  soul’s  life,  in  the  manner 
described  in  the  text.  St  John,  however,  seems  to  teach  that  an  habitual  sense 
of  God’s  presence  is  confined  to  mystical  marriage  (sup.  39). 

2 There  was,  of  course,  an  "habitual  presence  ” in  the  centre.  Owing,  how- 
ever, to  the  limiting  selfhood  that  presence  was  not  a possession,  as  now  when 
that  resistant  limit  has  been  removed. 


308  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

the  very  giound  of  the  psychical  life.  Now,  however,  this  con- 
sciousness is  habitually  present.  If  in  the  prayer  of  quiet  the 
presence  of  the  Beloved  in  the  dark  chamber  was  felt,  if  in  ecstasy 
His  hand  was  grasped,  in  mystical  marriage  He  is  enfolded  in  a 
close  and  continuous  embrace.  I also  figure  the  transforming 
union  by  the  following  image.  The  centre  of  the  soul  is  filled 
with  God  like  a reservoir  full  of  water,  for  its  capacity  has  been 
emptied  of  selfhood  by  the  antecedent  purgation.  When  the 
transforming  union  is  in  act  the  flood-gates  of  this  reservoir  are 
opened  and  the  Divine  water  pours  out  and  fills  the  channels, 
the  activities  or  functions  of  the  soul.  The  sole  reason  why  the 
union  is  not  always  in  act  is  a certain  dependence  of  the  soul  on 
the  body  and  occupation  by  the  bodily  activities  which  survives 
the  destruction  of  the  internal  barrier  of  selfhood  effected  in  the 
night  of  spirit.  To  this  habitual  possession  and  its  transient  acts 
Mother  Cecilia  refers  when  she  says  : “ The  faculties  are  already 
divinised  in  habit,  and  in  act  they  are  often  divinised  ” (Trans., 
st.  6).  The  faculties  are  habitually  divinised  by  God’s  felt  posses- 
sion of  their  root,  actually  when  their  entire  activity  is  the  recep- 
tion of  His.  When  the  more  external  activities  supervene,  the 
Divine  possession  is  only  felt  at  the  root  of  consciousness  and 
will,  always,  however,  ready  to  fill  both  functions  of  the  centre 
now  thus  consciously  God-possessed.  This  difference  between  the 
continuous  union  and  its  transient  though  increasingly  frequent 
acts  is  laid  down  by  St  John.  “Though  the  soul,”  he  says, 
“ be  always  in  the  high  estate  of  marriage  ever  since  God  has 
placed  it  there,  nevertheless  actual  union  in  all  its  powers  is  not 
continuous,  though  the  substantial  union  is.  In  this  substantial 
union,  however,  the  powers  of  the  soul  are  very  frequently  in 
union  and  drink  of  this  cellar,  the  understanding  by  knowledge, 
the  will  by  love  and  so  forth.  We  are  not,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  the  soul,  when  it  says  that  it  went  out,  has  ceased  from  the 
substantial  union  ” (i.e.  the  conscious  union  in  the  substance  of 
the  soul  or  central  ego),  “ but  only  from  the  union  of  its  faculties, 
which  is  not  and  cannot  be  continuous  in  this  life  ” {Spiritual 
Canticle,  st.  26).  This  distinction,  however,  between  the  habitual 
state  and  its  acts  is  not  so  clear  in  every  passage  in  his  writings. 
It  is  very  often  difficult  to  tell  whether  a description  applies  to 
the  habitual  state  or  to  its  actualisation.  Indeed  both  are  often 
treated  together  as  constituting  the  complete  union.  Even  when 
the  union  is  not  in  act,  in  principle  the  life  or  activity  of  the  soul 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  309 

is  Divinely  possessed  and  Divinely  moved,  and  is  thus  a reception 
and  participation  of  the  Divine  life  or  activity  that  is  of  the 
Divine  Being.  Moreover,  as  the  acts  of  union  grow  more  frequent, 
the  Divine  possession  of  the  soul  becomes  more  complete,  though 
in  principle  effected  since  the  first  entrance  of  the  soul  into  the 
transforming  union.  Because  the  life  of  the  soul  now  proceeds 
from  God  operating  in  and  through  its  life,  it  is  a participation 
of  the  Divine  life  thus  lived  within  it.* 

St  John  and  Mother  Cecilia  speak  of  this  union  as  a trans- 
formation of  the  soul  “ en  Dios.'1  The  preposition  en  may  mean 
in  or  into.  In  my  opinion  it  is  by  the  latter  that  it  should  here 
be  rendered.  The  soul  is  transformed  into  God  because  its  life 
is  a participation  of  His,  because  its  natural  and  therefore  essenti- 
ally limited  activity  has  been  destroyed  (save  for  certain  sensible 
functions  which  must  endure  so  long  as  life  lasts)  and  has  been 
replaced  by  a reception  of  His  unlimited  activity.  Everything 
that  I have  said  is  scant  by  comparison  with  the  strong  expres- 
sions used  by  our  authors  to  describe  the  identification  of  the 
soul’s  interior  life  with  God  present  and  operative  in  the  soul. 
The  spiritual  marriage,  writes  St  John,  “ is  a complete  transforma- 
tion into  the  Beloved : whereby  they  surrender  each  to  the  other  the 
entire  possession  of  themselves  together  with  a certain  consumma- 
tion of  the  union  of  love  ” {Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  22). 

The  soul’s  consciousness  of  the  Divine  possession  of  its  centre 
and  of  the  Divine  life  proceeding  thence  to  be  its  own  life  is  thus 
expressed  by  St  John.  The  soul  “ usually  feels  that  it  embraces  ” 
the  Bridegroom  “ so  closely  that  it  is  in  truth  an  embrace  by 
means  whereof  the  soul  lives  the  life  of  God.  . . . And  now  that 
the  soul  lives  a life  so  happy  and  so  glorious  as  this  life  of  God, 
what  a sweet  life  it  must  be — a life  wherein  God  sees  nothing 
displeasing,  and  where  the  soul  finds  nothing  irksome,  but  rather 
tastes  and  feels  the  glory  and  delight  of  God  in  the  very  substance 
of  itself  now  transformed  into  Him  ” {Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  22). 
“ We  may  say  in  truth,”  he  writes  in  another  passage,  “ that  such 
a soul  is  clothed  in  God,  and  bathed  in  the  Divinity,  and  that 
not  as  it  were  on  the  surface  but  in  the  interior  spirit,  being  clad 
in  the  Divine  delights  in  the  abundance  of  the  spiritual  waters 
of  life.  . . . This  fulness  will  be  of  the  very  being  of  the  soul  ” 
{Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  25).  “ As  a draught  diffuses  itself  through 

all  the  members  and  veins  of  the  body,  so  this  communication  of 
God  diffuses  itself  substantially  in  the  whole  soul,  or  rather,  the 


310  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

soul  is  transformed  into  God.  In  this  transformation  the  soul 
drinks  of  God  in  its  substance  and  in  its  spiritual  faculties  ” 
{Spiritual  Canticle,  st.  26).  St  John  is  here  evidently  speaking 
of  the  habitual  union  and  its  acts  as  one  complete  union. 

Elsewhere  he  writes  : “In  that  soul  wherein  abides  no  desire, 
neither  images,  nor  forms  nor  affection  for  any  created  object, 
the  Beloved  dwells  most  secretly,  and  the  purer  the  soul  and  the 
greater  its  estrangement  from  everything  but  God,  the  closer  and 
more  intimate  is  His  embrace.  This  dwelling  is  secret,  because 
neither  the  devil  nor  the  human  intelligence  can  attain  to  this 
place  and  embrace,  so  as  to  have  knowledge  of  its  nature.  But  in 
this  state  of  perfection  the  Divine  presence  is  not  a secret  to  the  soul 
itself,  for  that  soul  enjoys  a perpetual  sense  of  this  intimate  embrace. 
. . . The  Beloved  is  usually  as  it  were  asleep  in  this  embrace 
of  the  bride,  in  the  substance  of  the  soul,  and  the  soul  has  usually 
a strong  sense  and  enjoyment  of  His  presence  ” ( Living  Flame, 
st.  4). 

Moreover,  this  habitual  consciousness  of  the  Divine  presence 
in  the  centre  is  in  this  passage  expressly  distinguished  from 
the  acts  of  the  Divine  union  which  St  John  calls  “ awakenings  ” 
of  God  in  the  soul.  He  then  proceeds  : “ The  soul,  however,  is  not 
always  conscious  of  these  awakenings,  for  when  the  Beloved  effects 
them,  it  seems  to  the  soul  that  He  is  awaking  in  her  bosom,  where 
before  He  was,  as  it  were,  asleep,  so  that  although  the  soul  felt 
and  enjoyed  His  presence,  He  seemed  to  be  asleep.  When, 
however,  either  of  the  two  parties  is  asleep,  the  mutual  com- 
munication of  knowledge  and  love  ceases,  until  both  have 
awakened  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  4).  This  passage  also  explains 
the  acts  of  union,  the  awakenings,  as  Divine  motions  in  the  under- 
standing and  will  proceeding  from  God,  felt  as  inhabiting  and 
possessing  the  centre — that  is,  the  root  and  ground  of  these  cognitive 
and  conative  functions.  Moreover,  St  John  proceeds  to  point 
out  that  this  habitual  sense  of  the  central  Presence  is  the  dis- 
tinguishing characteristic  of  this  supreme  state  of  union,  whereas 
in  earlier  stages  souls  “ do  not  ordinarily  feel  the  Presence  of  God, 
but  only  when  He  effects  certain  sweet  awakenings,  which, 
however,  are  not  of  the  same  kind  with  those  already  described  ” 
(the  acts  of  the  transforming  union),  “ neither  indeed  are  com- 
parable with  them  ” {Living  Flame,  st.  4).1  To  this  continuous 
sense  of  the  Divine  possession  of  the  centre  may  be  referred  the 

1 See,  however,  p.  315,  note. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  311 

words  of  Mother  Cecilia  : “ Now  that  the  soul’s  battle  is  over  ” 
( i.e . its  purgation  is  complete),  “ its  centre  is  glorified  by  the 
continuous  touches  of  God’s  substance.  . . . Even  if  the  soul  suffer 
severe  pains  in  its  lower  part,  these  pains  are  destroyed  by  the 
substance  of  God  within  it  ” (Trans.,  st.  3).  The  soul  has  thus 
finally  reached  an  abiding  condition  of  transformation  wherein 
“ its  substance  is  bathed  in  the  living  water  of  God  ” (Trans.,  st.  2). 
“ Now  the  soul  beholds  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  present  in  its 
centre”  (Trans.,  st.  4). 

“ The  soul,”  says  Mother  Cecilia,  “ now  sees  that  its  centre  is 
living  in  the  life  of  God.  The  impetuous  force  that  proceeds 
from  this  Divine  life  (in  whose  immensity  the  soul  is  grounded 
with  a Divine  tranquillity  in  this  life  wherein  it  lives  and  is  trans- 
formed) occasions  it  a glorious  satisfaction  in  the  presence  and 
fruition  of  its  Beloved,  to  which  it  can  give  no  other  name,  save 
this  of  its  desired  end,  for  it  is  the  most  infinite  good  that  could 
be  desired  ” (Trans.,  st.  8).  “ The  soul,  or  rather  its  better  and 

more  substantial  part — namely,  its  essence  ” (the  centre) — “ is 
filled  with  and  transformed  into  this  Divine  substance  and  force, 
that  has  consumed  and  changed  it  into  Himself  ” (Trans.,  st.  11). 
“ The  most  powerful  and  infinite  Deity  bathes  the  centre  of  the 
soul  which  He  now  keeps  in  Himself  ” (st.  16).  “ The  soul  beholds 

its  centre  united  and  satisfied  with  the  very  substance  of  God  ” 
(Union). 

This  conscious  possession  of  the  centre  by  God  is  the  cause  of  a 
permanent  peace  in  this  state  which  excludes  the  spiritual  suffer- 
ings hitherto  experienced.  St  John  indeed  in  The  Living  Flame 
says  distinctly  that  “ the  soul  is  now  incapable  of  suffering  ” 
(st.  1).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  thirty-ninth  stanza  of  the 
Spiritual  Canticle  he  tells  us  that  in  this  life  the  soul  “ still 
suffers,  in  some  measure  both  pain  and  harm.”  There  is  no  re- 
conciliation of  these  contradictory  statements  in  the  writings  of 
St  John.  For  this  we  must  turn  to  Mother  Cecilia.  There  we 
find  several  passages  which  inform  us  that  suffering  is  now  con- 
fined to  the  lower  part  of  the  soul,  and  is  unable  to  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  centre  in  its  continuous  enjoyment  of  God’s  presence, 
so  that  the  central  ego  is  now  free  from  suffering,  although  the 
lower  and  more  exterior  functions  of  the  soul  still  suffer.  “ Even 
if  the  soul  suffer  severe  pains  in  the  lower  part,  those  pains  are 
destroyed  by  the  substance  of  God  within  it  ” (Trans.,  st.  3). 
“ It  is  the  lower  part  of  the  soul  that  suffers.  The  centre  is  always 


312  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

calm  in  this  state  ” (st.  6).  “ The  soul  is  fixed  in  God  as  in  its 

true  centre,  wherein  it  is  lost  and  absorbed,  and  therefore  that 
peace  admits  no  disturbance.  When  trouble  or  suffering  occurs 
in  the  lower  part,  this  central  peace  absorbs  that  pain  into 
itself  with  such  sweetness  and  strength  that  it  passes  away  like  a 
shadow  ” (st.  8).  “ In  the  exterior  and  lower  parts  the  soul  does 
not  cease  to  suffer  pain.  The  central  substance,  however  . . . 
does  not  feel  pain.  ...  If  the  soul  feels  any  pain,  it  is  ...  in 
the  inferior  part  alone,  and  it  is  very  speedily  consumed  by  the 
superior  part  ” (st.  10).  This  co-existence  of  peace  and  joy  in 
the  centre  with  suffering  in  the  lower  functions  is  exemplified  in 
the  last  illness  of  St  Catherine  of  Genoa.  With  her  the  external 
torment  seems  to  have  been  the  normal  occasion  of  an  increased 
central  joy  (Baron  von  Hugel,  Mystical  Element,  vol.  i.,  p.  199). 
Moreover,  these  sufferings  of  the  lower  functions  or  faculties 
are  now  no  longer  purgatorial,  but  entirely  expiatory  of 
the  sins  of  others,  as  were  those  of  Our  Immaculate  Lady. 
Indeed  this  expiatory  suffering  has  at  times  been  permitted  by 
special  dispensation  of  God  to  attain  the  central  ego  and  to  over- 
cloud its  peace  and  its  consciousness  of  the  Divine  presence. 
Although  this  is  not  hinted  either  by  St  John  or  Mother  Cecilia,  it 
is  evident  both  from  the  compassion  of  Our  Lady  and  from  the  lives 
of  certain  victims  of  expiation  who  had  indubitably  been  raised  to 
the  state  of  mystical  marriage.  An  instance  of  this  is  the  death- 
bed dereliction  of  Gemma  Galgani.1  This  exception,  however, 
is  far  from  disproving  the  general  truth  of  Mother  Cecilia’s 
teaching  of  the  peace  and  freedom  from  pain  enjoyed  by 
the  central  ego  in  virtue  of  its  continuous  fruition  of  the  Divine 
presence. 

The  efflux  of  this  Divine  presence  and  operation  in  the  centre 
into  the  central  functions  of  the  soul,  which  constitutes  the  act  of 
the  transforming  union,  is  clearly  stated  by  St  John.  “As  a 
draught,”  he  says,  “ diffuses  itself  through  all  the  members  and 
veins  of  the  body,  so  this  communication  of  God  diffuses  itself 
substantially  into  the  whole  soul.  ...  In  this  transformation  the 
soul  drinks  of  God  in  its  substance  and  in  its  spiritual  faculties. 
In  the  understanding  it  drinks  wisdom  and  knowledge,  in  the  will 
the  sweetest  love,  in  the  memory  refreshment  and  delight  in  the 
recollection  and  sense  of  its  glory  ” {Cant.,  st.  26).  This  Divine 
efflux  is,  if  possible,  even  more  clearly  expressed  by  Mother  Cecilia. 

1 Life,  pp.  344-348. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  313 

“ The  soul,”  she  tells  us,  “that  now  lives  in  this  Divine  life  feels 
in  a very  special  manner  that  a stream  of  life  is  proceeding  from  its 
centre.  It  sees  that  this  stream  of  life  springs  from  the  substance 
of  God  (Who  is  the  life  of  the  centre)  and  flows  down  into  the 
faculties  and  lower  part,  which  enjoy  a ray  of  that  hidden  life 
that  is  Avithin  itself  ” (Trans.,  st.  4).  “ The  flood  of  glory  received 

from  God  in  the  centre  spreads  and  extends  itself  to  the  lowest 
part  ” (st.  15).  “When  God  penetrates  the  essence  of  the  soul 
there  issues  from  His  very  Being  eternal  and  infinite  a ray  of 
light,  or  surge  of  water  (though  it  is  really  neither  of  these,  but  the 
very  Being  of  God),  which  transfuses  the  soul.  . . . The  soul  has 
a sweet  sense  that  this  ray  is  piercing  through  it  with  a gentle 
movement,  issuing,  it  would  seem,  from  its  very  centre,  which  is 
grounded  in  God.  . . . From  time  to  time  God  makes  this  motion 
like  a surge  of  water  flowing  forth  from  a reservoir,  a ray  proceed- 
ing from  the  sun  or  the  sweet  perfume  that  is  smelt  Avhen  a vial  of 
fragrant  liquid  is  stirred.  The  mighty  God,  Who  dwells  in  the 
centre  of  the  soul,  effects  this  movement,  and  from  the  centre  it 
spreads  to  the  extremities.  This  most  po\trerful  and  infinite 
Deity  bathes  the  centre  of  the  soul,  which  He  now  keeps  in  Him- 
self, and  issuing  from  thence  He  bathes  the  entire  soul  and  body. 
. . . The  entire  Being  is  bathed  by  the  Being  of  God  ; while  this 
Divine  ray  of  the  Deity  endures,  it  fills  the  entire  soul  and  body  ” 
(st.  16).  “ That  which  God  communicates  to  the  essence  of 

the  soul  overflows  to  its  higher  part  and  proceeds  from  thence 
to  the  lower  part  and  to  the  body  ” (Union). 

Thus  when  the  act  of  this  union  attains  its  utmost  fulness  and 
power  the  entire  soul,  even  in  its  lower  functions,  is  filled  and  im- 
pelled by  the  Divine  influx.  At  other  times,  however,  during  the 
act  of  this  union  the  Divine  influx  fills  the  higher  functions  of  the 
soul  alone  and  leaves  the  lower  body-informing  functions  in  their 
natural  operation.  When  this  is  the  case  the  soul  has  the  experi- 
ence of  a double  life,  almost  of  a double  personality.1  Its  higher 
life  or  activity,  now  God-informed  and  God-impelled,  seems  to  be 
cut  off  from  its  lower  life.  “ The  higher  and  lower  portions  of  the 
soul,”  says  St  John,  “ seem  to  it  ...  to  be  so  far  apart  that  it 
recognises  two  parts  in  itself,  each  so  distinct  from  the  other  that 
neither  seems  to  have  anything  in  common  with  the  other,  being 

1 This  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  rare  pathological  condition  of  double 
personality  when  there  exist  two  apparently  distinct  egos  or  selves  in  one  person 
with  no  conscious  link  between  them. 


314  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  appearance  so  far  removed  and  apart.  And  in  reality  this  is, 
in  a certain  manner,  true,  for  in  its  present  operation,  which 
is  wholly  spiritual,  it  has  no  commerce  with  the  sensual 
part  ” ( Dark  Night,  ii.  23).  This  experience  is  mentioned 
by  Blessed  Angela  of  Foligno,  who  says : “I  saw  in  me 
two  parts,  as  if  a division  had  been  made  in  me,  and  on  one 
side  I saw  love  and  all  good  that  was  from  God  and  not  from 
me,  and  on  the  other  I saw  myself  dry  and  that  from 
myself  there  was  no  good  thing  ” ( Visions  and  Instructions, 
chap,  xxv.,  p.  81). 1 

At  the  opening  of  The  Living  Flame  St  John  returns  to  his 
favourite  simile  of  fuel  and  fire,  which  he  has  already  used  to 
illustrate  the  action  of  the  second  night,  to  illustrate  now  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  habitual  transforming  union  and  its  acts, 
which  acts  increase  indefinitely,  both  in  frequency  and  in  intensity. 
“ The  flame  of  love,”  he  writes,  “ is  the  spirit  of  the  Bridegroom, 
that  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  Whom  the  soul  now  feels  within  itself,  not 
only  as  a fire  that  holds  it  consumed  and  transformed  in  sweet 
love,  but  as  a fire  which,  beyond  this,  burns  within  it  and  darts 
forth  a flame.  . . . Whenever  that  flame  shoots  forth  it  bathes 
the  soul  in  glory,  and  refreshes  it  with  the  temper  of  Divine  life. 

. . . The  difference  between  the  transformation  in  love  and  the 
flame  of  love  is  that  between  habit  and  act,  and  is  like  the  difference 
between  burning  wood  and  the  flame  it  emits,  for  the  flame  is  an 
effect  of  the  fire  that  is  present  in  the  wood.  We  can  therefore 
say  of  the  soul  in  this  state  of  transformation  of  love  that  this 
transformation  is  its  ordinary  habit,  and  that  it  is  like  wood  which 
is  continuously  in  the  fire,  and  that  its  acts  are  the  flame,  begotten 
of  the  fire  of  love,  which  darts  forth  with  a vehemence  propor- 
tionate to  the  intensity  of  the  fire  of  union  ” ( Living  Flame, 
st.  1).  This  divine  activity  outflowing  from  the  centre  through 
the  psychical  functions  is,  as  we  have  seen,  received  by  these 
functions  in  such  wise  that  their  activities  are  rendered  divine, 
because  they  are  now  receptions  or  participations  of  the  Divine 
activity  infused  into  them.  This  doctrine  of  the  deification  of  the 

1 See  also  Spiritual  Journal  of  Lucie  Christine,  ed.  Poulain,  Eng.  trs.,  p.  47. 
This  experience  was,  however,  undoubtedly  given  before  the  transforming  union. 
The  same  phenomenon  was  produced  in  this  and  in  like  instances  by  a similar 
but  not  identical  cause — namely,  the  transient  seizure  of  the  central  powers 
by  God  as  it  were  ab  extra,  as  distinguished  from  His  internal  efflux  from  the 
continuously  possessed  centre  that  occurs  in  the  act  of  the  transforming 
union. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  315 

higher  and  more  interior  activities  of  the  soul 1 by  their  reception 
of  the  Divine  activity  is  distinctly  affirmed  in  many  passages  by 
St  John  of  the  Cross  and  Mother  Cecilia. 

In  the  third  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame  St  John  says  that  the 
.virtues  and  attributes  of  the  soul  are  those  of  God  Himself,  only 
in  a shadow,  because  the  soul’s  comprehension  of  God  is  imperfect. 
At  the  very  opening  of  this  book  we  read  that  “ In  this  state  the 
soul  cannot  make  acts,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  effects  them  all  and 
moves  the  soul  to  them.  Hence  all  the  acts  of  the  soul  are  Divine, 
because  the  soul  is  moved  and  operated  by  God  ” (Flame,  st.  1). 
And  elsewhere  he  says,  speaking  of  the  intuitional  element  of  the 
act  of  union,  “ the  soul  is  renewed  and  moved  by  God  to  behold 
this  supernatural  sight  ” (Flame,  st.  4).  Of  the  divinisation  or 
deification  of  the  understanding — that  is,  of  the  intuition — Mother 
Cecilia  speaks  thus : “ When  the  understanding  and  natural 

reason  have  passed  away  . . . the  things  of  God  are  understood 
supernaturally  above  all  understanding  and  above  all  reason  ” 
(Union).  “The  Beloved  infuses  into  the  soul  certain  rays  of  the 
Divine  Being  which  make  the  soul  resplendent  with  their  life, 
sanctity  and  beauty.  In  this  . . . mutual  vision,  wherein  the 
two  lovers  are  contemplating  each  other,  the  soul  sees  the  beauty 
of  the  Beloved.  Its  understanding  does  not  form  this  vision  to 
which  the  soul  cannot  attain,  though  it  receives  as  much  light 
and  knowledge  as  its  capacity  suffers.  It  is  raised  to  a super- 
natural condition  that  it  may  he  made  Divine  and  may  under- 
stand after  a Divine  manner  ” (Transformation,  st.  11).  And 
again  : “The  understanding  . . . now  understands  divinely,  since 
the  former  human  mode  of  understanding  has  passed  away  ” 
(Transformation,  st.  6).  These  passages,  however,  fail  to  explain 
clearly  in  what  this  new  divine  understanding  and  love  consist. 
A clearer  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  passages  that  will  now 
be  cited.  In  the  second  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame  is  to  be  found 
a passage  already  quoted  in  which  St  John  tells  us  that  the  soul 
has  mortified — that  is,  has  put  to  death — its  entire  nature  and 
that  as  the  result  of  this  its  operations  and  affections  have  been 
rendered  divine.  St  John  proceeds  to  explain  and  emphasise  this 
deification.  “ The  understanding,”  he  says,  “ that  previously  to 
this  union  understood  naturally  by  the  force  and  vigour  of  its 

1 The  lower  activities  cannot  of  their  nature  be  thus  divinised,  being  corporeal 
in  their  dependence  and  reference.  Their  participation  in  the  Divine  Union  is 
therefore  but  a sensible  sweetness. 


316  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

natural  light  through  the  bodily  senses,  is  now  moved  and  in- 
formed by  another  and  a far  higher  principle,  God’s  supernatural 
light  wherein  the  senses  have  no  part.  The  understanding  has 
now  therefore  been  rendered  divine,  since  in  virtue  of  this  union 
the  understanding  of  the  soul  and  that  of  God  are  all  one.  The 
will  also  which  formerly  loved  after  a mean  and  dead  fashion  with 
its  natural  affection  is  now  changed  into  a life  of  divine  love, 
because  it  now  loves  after  a sublime  fashion  with  a divine  affection, 
moved  by  the  force  and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Whom  it  lives 
now  a life  of  love,  since  by  virtue  of  this  union  the  soul’s  will  and 
the  will  of  the  Spirit  are  one  sole  will.  . . . The  natural  desire 
that  once  possessed  only  capacity  and  strength  to  taste  the  sweet- 
ness of  the  creature  that  works  death  is  now  changed  into  a Divine 
taste  and  sweetness,  moved  and  satisfied  henceforward  by  another 
principle  . . . because  it  is  united  with  God,  and  it  is  therefore 
now  solely  the  desire  of  God.  In  fine,  all  the  motions  and  opera- 
tions and  inclinations  which  sprung  formerly  from  the  principle 
and  force  of  the  soul’s  natural  life  are  now  in  this  union  changed 
into  divine  motions  dead  to  their  own  operation  and  inclination 
and  alive  in  God.  For  the  soul  ...  is  now  wholly  moved  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Hence  . . . the  understanding  of  such  a soul  is 
the  understanding  of  God,  its  will  the  will  of  God,  its  memory  the 
eternal  memory  of  God,  and  its  delight  the  delight  of  God.  More- 
over, the  substance  of  such  a soul,  although  it  is  not  the  substance 
of  God,  since  it  cannot  be  substantially  converted  into  Him,  never- 
theless since  it  is  thus  united  with  Him  and  absorbed  into  Him, 
is  God  by  participation  of  God.”  In  this  passage  a distinction  is 
drawn  between  the  substance  of  the  soul,  which  is  not  and  cannot 
be  changed  into  God,  and  its  functions  or  activities,  which  are 
changed  into  His  operations.  If  chat  change  had  been  understood 
by  St  John  in  some  unreal  or  restricted  sense,  this  distinction 
would  lose  its  point,  for  as  this  very  passage  affirms,  there  is  a 
sense  in  which  the  substance  may  be  said  to  be  God — namely,  by 
union  and  absorption.  The  meaning  of  this  absorption  will 
be  discussed  later.  The  truth  to  be  realised  at  present  is  that 
although  the  substance  may  be  truly  said  to  become  God,  that  is 
only  in  a restricted  and  non-literal  sense,  whereas  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  substance  the  deification  of  the  activities  or 
functions  is  affirmed  without  qualification.  The  essence  of  this 
deification  is,  that  whereas  the  activities  proceeded  formerly  from 
a natural  principle,  they  are  now  actuated  and  informed  by  God. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  317 

But  an  activity  that  proceeds  from  God  as  its  principle  is  a Divine 
activity  or  operation.  Therefore  these  activities  or  operations  of 
the  soul  are  Divine  activities  received  in  the  soul.  This  is  confirmed 
by  the  words  of  Mother  Cecilia’s  Treatise  on  the  Union  of  the  Soul 
with  God.  “ By  this  death  in  God,”  she  writes,  “ wherein  the  soul 
dies  to  all  its  knowledge,  consciousness,  understanding  and  love, 
God  becomes  the  life  of  the  soul.  He  is  now  wisdom  in  the  soul 
making  her  supematurally  wise,  consciousness  whereby  the  soul 
is  conscious  of  itself  in  Him,  not  in  its  own  self-consciousness.  . . . 
He  is  love  also  in  the  soul  wherewith  it  loves.  These  souls  there- 
fore love  God  . . . with  the  very  love  of  Him  Whom  they  love 
which  He  infuses  into  them.”  “ Blessed,”  she  exclaims,  “ is  the 
soul  that  understands  God  with  His  own  understanding,  because 
He  grants  it  His  own  understanding  wherewith  to  understand  Him. 
Blessed  is  the  soul  that  loves  God  with  His  own  love,  because 
He  grants  it  His  own  love  wherewith  to  love  Him.”  Again,  in  the 
thirty-eighth  stanza  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle,  St  John  says  that 
in  heaven  “ The  understanding  of  the  soul  will  be  the  understand- 
ing of  God  and  its  will  the  will  of  God,”  and  “ its  love  will  be  His 
love,”  for  the  soul  will  then  love  God  “ with  the  will  and  strength 
of  God  Himself,  being  made  one  with  the  very  strength  of  love 
wherewith  itself  is  loved  of  God.”  He  proceeds  to  add  that  “ in 
the  perfect  transformation  ...  of  the  state  of  spiritual  marriage 
..  . . the  soul  loves  in  a certain  way  through  the  Holy  Ghost  ” — that 
is,  the  principle  from  which  her  acts  of  love  proceed  is  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the  following  stanza  he  says  that  che  soul  in  heaven 
will  “ breathe  in  God  the  same  aspiration  of  love  which  the  Father 
breathes  with  the  Son,  and  the  Son  with  the  Father,  which  is  the 
Holy  Ghost  Himself,  Who  is  breathed  into  the  soul  in  the  Father 
and  the  Son  in  that  transformation  so  as  to  unite  it  to  Himself.” 
He  adds  that  even  on  earth  the  soul  “ united  with  God  and  trans- 
formed into  Him  breathes  in  God  to  God  that  very  divine  aspira- 
tion which  God  breathes  in  Himself  to  the  soul  when  it  is  trans- 
formed into  Him.  . . . The  blessed  in  the  life  to  come  and  the 
perfect  in  this  thus  experience  it.”  In  other  words,  the  deification 
of  the  activities  of  the  soul  in  spiritual  marriage  is  identical  in 
principle  with  the  deification  of  the  activities  of  the  souls  blessed 
in  heaven,  since  the  former  is  the  beginning  of  the  latter.  “ Nor,” 
proceeds  St  John,  “is  it  to  be  thought  impossible  that  the  soul 
should  be  capable  of  so  great  a thing  as  that  it  should  breathe  in 
God,  as  God  in  it,  in  the  way  of  participation.  For,  granted  that 


318  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

God  has  bestowed  upon  it  so  great  favour  as  to  unite  it  to  the  most 
Holy  Trinity  . . . is  it  something  incredible  that  it  should  exercise 
the  operation  of  its  understanding,  its  knowledge  and  its  love,  or, 
to  speak  more  accurately,  should  have  it  all  done  in  the  Holy 
Trinity  together  with  It,  as  the  Holy  Trinity  Itself  ? This  takes 
place  by  communication  and  participation,  God  Himself  effecting 
it  in  the  soul,  for  this  is  to  be  transformed  in  the  Three  Persons  in 
power,  wisdom  and  love.”  The  soul,  Mother  Cecilia  tells  us, 
knows  God  “ by  a Divine  experience  ” and  “participation  of  His 
Divine  Being.”  “ It  is  a certain  participation  of  His  Divine 
Substance  ” (I  have  termed  it  of  His  activity.  In  God  both  are 
one  and  the  same  thing),  “ of  that  same  substance  which  in  heaven 
is  beheld  openly”  {Trans.,  st.  12). 

Antonius  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  a later  mystical  theologian  of 
this  same  Carmelite  school,  tells  us  that  “the  soul  does  not  so 
much  act  as  receive,  though  certainly  it  gives  its  consent.  It  does 
not  so  much  behold  and  love  as  find  in  itself  that  very  intuition 
most  glorious,  and  love  most  ardent  of  God  ” ( Directorium 
Mysiicum,  Tract  4,  Disp.  1,  sec.  2).  Elsewhere  he  says  that  the 
transformation  of  the  soul  into  God  is  effected  “ through  an 
expulsion  of  its  own  nature  in  a perfect  (full)  participation  of  the 
Divine  Nature  by  an  extraordinary  gift  of  sanctifying  grace  and 
in  a participation  of  the  Divine  Understanding  by  a sublime  light 
of  contemplation  and  of  the  Divine  Will  by  most  fervent  love  ” 
(Tract  4,  Disp.  4,  sec.  4). 

This  “ receptionist  ” explanation  of  the  union  of  mystical 
marriage  and  a fortiori  of  the  beatific  vision  has  surely  been 
sufficiently  established  by  the  explicit  affirmations  of  St  John  and 
of  Mother  Cecilia.  It  may,  however,  appear  to  some  of  my 
readers  so  pantheistic  that  they  will  at  once  reject  it  as  unortho- 
dox. Indeed  Fr.  Tcrrien  in  his  treatment  of  the  beatific  vision 
{La  Grace  et  la  Gloire,  Bk.  IX.,  chap,  iii.)  rejects  as  pantheistic  in 
tendency  the  doctrine  that  in  the  beatific  vision  God’s  own  vision 
of  Himself  is  participated  by  the  saints  (p.  167).  But  in  his 
explanation  of  the  nature  of  sanctifying  grace  in  the  first  volume 
he  insists  that  grace  is  a “ permanent  and  very  intimate  participa- 
tion of  the  Divine  nature,”  as  St  Peter  tells  us,  “ by  grace  we  are 
made  divince  natures  consortes  [partakers  of  the  Divine  nature]  ” 
(Bk.  II. , chap  ii).  This  participation  is  then  explained  by  Fr. 
Tcrrien  as  a participation  in  the  operations  proper  to  God  alone, 
as  their  first  principle,  and  of  which  therefore  no  creature  can 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  319 

be  the  first  principle.  The  Divine  Operation  wherein  we  thus 
participate  is,  he  tells  us,  here  expounding  the  common  teaching 
of  the  fathers,  schoolmen  and  theologians,  the  Divine  self-know- 
ledge or  self-vision — a vision  which  of  ourselves  we  cannot,  being 
creatures,  possess.  This  participated  vision  to  which  we  have 
access  through  grace  alone  is  further  declared  to  be  “a  radiation 
that  takes  place  within  ourselves  from  that  which  is  highest,  most 
intimate,  most  deep  and  most  naturally  incommunicable  in  the 
Divine  Substance.”  I fail  to  see  any  real  distinction  between  this 
teaching  and  the  participation-vision  which  he  condemns  else- 
where.1 Moreover,  if  the  Divine  self-vision  is  thus  communicated 
to  the  soul  and  received  in  its  consciousness,  His  self-love  must 
similarly  be  communicated  to  the  soul  and  received  in  the  will,  for 
between  God’s  self-vision  and  self-love  there  is  no  real  distinction. 
Again,  since  the  Divine  Substance  is  one  with  the  Divine  self- 
vision and  self-love,  that  substance  itself  must  be  communicated 
to  and  received  in  the  soul.  Surely  receptionism  is  thus  deducible 
from  the  principle  laid  down  by  its  seeming  opponent. 

Nor  is  the  receptionist  explanation  of  mystical  marriage  con- 
fined to  the  Spanish  school  of  mysticism.  It  is,  on  the  contrary, 
to  be  found  in  mystical  writers  of  all  places  and  periods.  From 
the  vast  mass  of  possible  testimony  I can  only  quote  a few  repre- 
sentative statements  of  very  diverse  provenance,  which  will,  how- 
ever, amply  prove  the  universality  of  receptionism.  The  partici- 
pation and  reception  of  the  Godhead  by  the  soul  is  affirmed  veiy 
clearly  of  the  intuitional  element  of  the  union  in  a locution  spoken 
by  Our  Lord  to  the  Ven  Battista  Vemazza,  quoted  by  Baron  von 
Htigel  ( Mystical  Element,  vol.  i.,  pp.  356-857).  “ I generate  My 

Son,  having  an  infinite  cognition  of  Myself ; similarly  I generate 
thee,  by  infusing  into  thee  that  same  cognition.  But  (this)  My 
cognition  is  without  measure  ; and  thine  shall  be  according  to  that 
measure  which  I shall  by  My  goodness  be  impelled  to  give  thee,  in 
such  wise  that  of  this  cognition  and  of  thine  intellect  there  shall  be 

1 Fr.  Terrien  may  have  meant  to  condemn  only  the  identification  of  the 
participated  vision  with  the  lumen  glories  (an  identification,  however,  expressly 
taught  by  Antonius  a Spiritu  Sanctu  : Directorium  Mysticum,  Tract  3,  Dist.  4, 
sec.  5).  He  identifies,  however,  this  "radiation”  with  created  grace  and  so 
speaks  of  an  " Seoul ement  cree  de  cette  nature  increee” — "a  created  emanation 
of  the  Uncreated  Nature.”  This  expression  seems  a contradiction  in  terms. 
Surely  created  grace  is  not  the  “ participation  of  the  Divine  Nature,”  but  merely 
the  ground  and  principle  of  that  participation  inhering  in  the  nature  of  the 
participator. 


320  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

effected  one  identical  thing ; so  that  I shall  place  My  Word,  My 
Concept,  which  I possess  within  Myself  in  thee,  according  to  that 
capacity  for  it  which  I shall  deign  to  give  thee  ; and  so  that,  again, 
thy  spirit  shall  be  a son  within  My  Son,  or  rather  one  only  son 
with  Him.  Thus  shall  I have  Generated  thee.”  Though  this 
statement  is  directly  concerned  only  with  the  intuition,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  principle  it  affirms  is  applicable  to  the  entire 
union. 

From  the  Netherlands  Ruysbroeck  teaches  the  same  doctrine. 
“ AH  the  powers  of  the  soul,”  he  says,  “ must  give  way,  and  they 
must  suffer  and  patiently  endure  that  piercing  Truth  and  Good- 
ness which  is  God's  self  ” ( Book  of  Supreme  Truth,  chap,  viii.,  trs. 
Wynschenk  Dom).  “ Their  bare  understanding  is  drenched 
through  by  the  eternal  Brightness,  even  as  the  air  is  drenched 
through  by  the  sunshine.  And  the  bare  uplifted  will  is  trans- 
formed and  drenched  through  by  abysmal  love,  even  as  iron  is  by 
fire  ” ( Supreme  Truth , chap.  xi).  “ He  feels  God  within  him- 
self ...  as  the  quickening  health  of  his  being  and  all  his  works  ” 
{Supreme  Truth,  chap.  vi).  “ All  our  powers  fail  us  and  we  fall 
from  ourselves  into  our  wide-opened  contemplation  and  become 
all  One  and  one  All  in  the  loving  embrace  of  the  Threefold  Unity. 
Whenever  we  feel  this  union  ” (the  transforming  union  in  act)  “ we 
are  one  being,  and  one  life  and  one  blessedness  with  God  ” ( The 
Sparkling  Stone,  chap.  xii).  “In  the  transformation  within  the 
Unity  all  spirits  fail  in  their  own  activity,  and  feel  nothing  else 
but  a burning  up  of  themselves  in  the  simple  Unity  of  God.  . . . 
In  this  transcendent  state  the  spirit  feels  in  itself  the  eternal  fire 
of  love  . . . and  it  feels  itself  one  with  this  fire  of  love.  ...  If  it 
observes  itself,  it  finds  a distinction  and  an  otherness  between 
itself  and  God  ; but  where  it  is  burnt  up  ” (in  the  Divine  influx 
constitutive  of  the  act  of  this  supreme  union)  “ it  is  undifferenti- 
ated and  without  distinction,  and  therefore  it  feels  nothing  but 
unity  : for  the  flame  of  the  love  of  God  consumes  and  devours  all 
that  it  can  enfold  in  itself.  . . . Through  this  intimate  feeling  of 
union  ” the  soul  “ feels  itself  to  be  melting  into  the  Unity  : and, 
through  dying  to  all  things,  into  the  life  of  God.  And  then  it  feels 
itself  to  be  one  life  with  God  ” ( Sparkling  Stone,  chap.  iii).  “ All 
those  men  who  are  raised  up  above  their  created  being  into  a God- 
seeing  life  are  one  with  this  Divine  Brightness,  and  they  are  that 
Brightness  itself,  and  they  see  ...  by  means  of  this  Divine 
light  ” {Adornment  of  the  Spiritual  Marriage,  Bk.  III.,  chap  iii). 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  321 

“ Every  creaturely  work  . . . must  here  cease,  for  here  God 
works  alone  in  the  high  nobility  of  the  spirit  . . . the  spirit  itself 
becomes  that  Breadth  which  it  grasps.  And  God  is  grasped  and 
beheld  through  God  ” ( Spiritual  Marriage,  Bk.  III.,  chap.  ii). 
“ The  spirit  receives  the  Brightness  which  is  God  Himself,  above 
. . . every  creaturely  activity.  The  loving  contemplative  . . . 
finds  himself,  and  feels  himself,  to  be  that  same  Light  by  which 
he  sees  ” ( Spiritual  Marriage,  Bk.  III.,  chap.  i). 

The  entire  union  must  therefore  consist  essentially  in  this 
reception  of  the  unlimited  activity,  life  and  being  (all  are  one)  of 
God,  by  and  in  the  activities,  life  and  substance  of  the  soul.  “ The 
detached  man,”  says  Suso  ( Autobiography , trs.  Knox,  p.  220), 
“ must  consider  the  presence  of  the  all-penetrating  Divine  essence 
in  Him  and  that  He  is  one  of  its  vessels .”  Here  we  have  at  least 
the  underlying  principle  of  receptionism.  And  again  : “ In  this 
merging  of  itself  in  God  the  spirit  passes  away,  and  yet  not  wholly, 
for  it  receives  indeed  some  attributes  of  the  Godhead  ” (p.  245). 
“ When  the  spirit  has  passed  out  of  itself  . . . there  shines  forth 
out  of  the  Unity  a simple  light,  and  this  light  streams  out  from  the 
three  Persons  into  the  purity  of  the  spirit.  When  this  light  falls 
upon  the  spirit,  it  sinks  down  out  of  itself,  and  all  that  belongs  to 
self ; the  activity  of  all  its  powers  comes  to  an  end  ” (i.e.  their 
activity  is  now  reception  of  the  Divine  influx),  “ and  it  is  divested 
of  its  operations  and  its  self-existence  ” (p.  247).  “ This  man” 

(the  highest  mystic)  “ finds  his  created  spirit  seized  upon  by  the 
super-essential  Spirit  and  drawn  into  that  which  it  never  could 
have  attained  to  in  its  own  strength.  This  entry  of  the  spirit  into 
God  strips  it  of  all  images,  forms  and  multiplicity,  and  it  becomes 
merged  with  the  three  Persons  in  the  abyss  of  their  indwelling 
simplicity  ” (p.  252). 

Similar  is  the  language  of  St  Catherine  of  Genoa.  “When,” 
she  said,  “ the  soul  is  transformed,  then  of  herself  she  neither 
works  nor  speaks  nor  wills  nor  feels  nor  hears  nor  understands, 
neither  has  she  of  herself  the  feeling  of  outward  and  inward,  where 
she  may  move.  In  all  things  it  is  God  Who  rules  and  guides  her 
without  the  mediation  of  any  creature  ” (Vita,  chap,  xviii.,  quoted 
by  Miss  Evelyn  Underhill,  Mysticism,  p.  528,  who  believes  it  to 
be  authentic).  Certainly  authentic  are  other  even  more  striking 
sayings  of  this  Saint.  “MY  ME,”  she  said,  “is  God,  nor  do  I 
recognise  any  other  Me  except  my  God  Himself.  God  is  my  Being, 
My  Me,  my  Strength,  my  Beatitude,  my  Delight.  My  being  is 


x 


322  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

God  ...  by  a true  transformation  of  my  Being.”  How  could 
receptionism  be  affirmed  more  strongly  than  by  sayings  such 
as  these  ? Turning  from  the  fourteenth  century  of  Suso  and 
Ruysbroeck  and  St  Catherine’s  fifteenth  century  to  our  own 
days,  we  find  the  same  receptionism  in  the  saying  of  Sister  Eliza- 
beth of  the  Trinity,  a Pauline  mystic  of  great  worth.  “ I love 
God  with  His  own  love  ; it  is  a double  current  between  Him  Who 
is  and  her  who  is  not  ” (Life,  Eng.  trs.,  p.  83).  If  the  operations 
of  the  will  are  thus  receptions  of  God’s  love,  the  other  operations 
of  the  soul  must  similarly  be  receptions  of  the  Divine  action.  “ In 
heaven,”  she  says  again,  and  this  must  hold  good  in  an  inferior 
degree  of  the  mystical  marriage,  “ each  soul  lives  no  longer  its  own 
life,  but  the  life  of  God.  The  soul  ‘ reflects  ’ God’s  whole  Being 
and  is  a fathomless  abyss  into  which  He  can  flow  and  outpour 
Himself,  a crystal  through  which  He  can  shine  and  view  His  own 
perfections  and  splendour”  (Life,  p.  96).  “I  am  Elizabeth  of 
the  Trinity — that  is  to  say,  Elizabeth  disappearing,  submerged 
in  the  Three.” 

The  same  receptionism  is  clearly  taught  by  another  modem 
mystic,  Sister  Gertrude  Mary.  “ At  the  end  of  my  prayer,”  she 
writes,  “ I participated  by  a mysterious  communion  in  the  power 
of  the  Father,  the  wisdom  of  the  Son,  the  goodness  and  charity  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  . . . God  the  Father  said  to  me  : ‘ Participate 
in  the  power  of  the  Father.  . . . Participate  in  the  wisdom  of 
the  Son.  . . . Participate  in  the  goodness  and  the  charity  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  ’ ” (extracts  from  her  Diary,  pp.  141-142). 
Even  clearer  is  the  language  of  her  greater  contemporary, 
Lucie  Christine.  “In  such  happy  moments,”  she  writes  of 
the  act  of  this  transforming  union,1  “it  is  no  longer  I who  am 
there  ; it  is  He.  I see  myself  no  longer,  I only  see  Jesus.  I am 
not  destroyed,  but  His  life  takes  possession  of  me,  dominates  and 
absorbs  me.  ...  I adore  Him,  but  the  Divine  Action  penetrates 
and  transforms  my  adoration ; the  Divine  Being  thinks,  lives  and 
loves  in  me.  I live  no  longer  except  through  Him  ” (Spiritual 
■Journal,  Eng.  trs.,  p.  237).  “ The  soul  is  so  one  with  God  in  the 

mystery  of  union  that  if,  in  that  passive  state,  she  formulates 
distinct  interior  acts,  she  feels  that  God  penetrates  her  prayer 
itself,  her  prayer  is  one  with  Him,  she  speaks  God  ” (p.  259).  “ It 

was  given  my  soul  to  know  the  effect  that  this  grace  operates, 

1 Or  perhaps  of  its  anticipation  in  the  transient  because  habitless  act  of  the 
Betrothal. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  323 

which  is  a veritable  passing  of  the  soul  in  God,  the  abstraction  of 
her  own  life  to  give  place  to  the  Divine  life  ” (p.  271).  “ There  is 

no  more  Thee  nor  me,  the  soul  now  no  longer  knows  how  to  dis- 
tinguish herself  from  Him  Whom  she  loves  ; nothing  remains  but 
God  alone  ” (p.  264).  “ Not  only  does  ” God  “ allow  Himself  to  be 

seen,  He  must  likewise  give  Himself  to  the  soul  as  the  eye  which 
sees  and  the  spirit  which  hears.  The  soul  then  feels  all  her  own 
proper  operations  suspended  and  useless  and  her  life  itself  flows 
into  God  where  she  knows  herself  no  longer,  seeing  only  Him,  living 
through  the  Father,  knowing  through  the  Word,  loving  through 
the  Holy  Ghost  ” (pp.  305-306). 

Such  is  the  witness  of  mystics  chosen,  as  it  were,  at  random. 
It  is  a witness  that  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  But,  indeed, 
we  need  go  no  further  than  the  prince  of  Christian  mystics,  St  Paul 
himself,  to  find  this  receptionist  teaching.  Does  not  the  Apostle 
declare  in  the  words  I have  quoted  as  a text  for  this  chapter,  “ I 
live,  now  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  ” ? In  other  words,  the 
interior  life  of  St  Paul’s  soul  is  simply  a reception  of  the  Divine 
life,  which  is  the  life  of  Christ.  Elsewhere  he  tells  the  Colossians 
that  in  Christ  “dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  corporeally. 
And,”  he  continues,  “ you  are  filled  in  Him  ” — filled,  evidently, 
with  a participation  of  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  that  is  one 
Person  with  Christ.*  St  Paul,  it  is  true,  addresses  all  Christians 
in  grace  and  therefore  says  little  or  nothing  of  the  especial  recep- 
tion of  God  in  mystical  marriage.  This  union  is,  however,  but 
the  completion  of  more  imperfect  receptions  granted  to  all 
in  a state  of  grace.  Therefore  the  principle  of  receptionism  is 
truly  Pauline,  and  Sister  Elizabeth  evidently  found  the 
doctrine  in  his  epistles.  This  interpretation  of  the  Pauline  and 
therefore  of  Catholic  teaching  is  approved  by  the  emphatic 
language  of  Wilhelm  and  Scanned  in  their  Manual  of  Catholic 
Theology,  and  their  teaching  is  but  a reproduction  of  that  of  the 
great  modern  theologian  of  grace,  the  German  Scheeben.  In  this 
Manual  we  read  that  “ in  the  beatific  vision  creatures  are  united 
to  God  as  intimately  as  if  they  were  one  with  Him  ; God,  as  the 
principle,  the  subject  matter  and  the  final  object  of  all  their 
spiritual  life,  replenishes,  penetrates  and  pervades  them  ” (p.  494). 
The  beatific  vision  is,  however,  as  a supernatural  union  with  God, 
anticipated,  though  in  lesser  degree,  by  the  act  of  the  transform- 
ing union.  Therefore  to  this  act  of  union  may  be  applied  the 
receptionism  so  plainly  taught  in  the  above-quoted  passage. 


324  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Moreover,  if  receptionism  be  untrue — that  is,  if  the  super- 
natural union  between  the  soul  and  God  through  grace  and  its 
fulfilment  glory  be  less  than  I have  understood  it  to  be — the  strong 
statements  of  the  mystics  must  be,  as  indeed  Pere  Poulain  actually 
terms  them  ( Les  Graces  d'Oraison,  chap,  xxii),  exaggerations.  But, 
as  we  have  seen,  it  is  a commonplace  of  the  mystics  that  the  reality 
of  their  experience  immeasurably  exceeds  any  possible  verbal 
or  conceptual  interpretation.  If,  however,  their  interpretation  is 
an  exaggeration  of  the  true  nature  of  the  experience,  the  exact 
contrary  is  the  case.  Hence  the  union  experienced  must  be  im- 
measurably closer,  higher  and  more  real  than  their  explanation  of 
it.  Therefore  their  “ receptionist  ” statement  of  that  union  cannot 
exceed,  but  must  fall  short  of,  the  reality.  Receptionism  is  the 
highest  conceivable  interpretation  short  of  a pantheistic  identifi- 
cation of  the  soul  and  God  which  would  destroy  the  Divine 
transcendence  and  would  deprive  the  entire  mystical  process  of 
its  significance  and  worth,  since  that  process  would  end  in  the 
annihilation  of  its  subject.  Therefore  the  receptionist  interpre- 
tation is  the  least  inadequate  explanation  of  the  inconceivable 
reality  of  the  supreme  union  between  the  soul  and  God,  or,  more 
truly,  the  only  adequate  interpretation,  because  it  is  itself  so  in- 
adequately comprehensible. 

Scheeben  cites  from  Goudin  a most  important  passage  in 
which  he  insists  that  the  promise  of  Scripture  that  we  shall  be 
made  partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature  is  to  be  understood  in  the 
strictest  sense.  “ The  words,”  he  says,  “ wherein  God  declares 
His  gifts  to  us  are  not  to  be  understood  as  hyperbolical  language  ” 
(exaggerations),  “ expressing  more  than  the  reality  of  which  they 
speak.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  firmly  believe  that  the  reality 
is  in  excess  of  its  verbal  expression.  If,  however,  grace  were  not 
a proper  and  physical  participation  of  the  Divine  Nature,  but 
merely  a moral  participation,  the  words  quoted  above,  in  which 
the  worth  of  grace  is  declared  to  be  such  that  it  constitutes  its 
possessors  partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature  and  sons  of  God,  would 
obviously  be  an  exaggeration  and  true  only  when  understood  not 
in  their  proper  sense,  but  only  in  an  improper  and  less  real  sense. 
Hence  grace  is  not  merely  a moral  participation  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  but  a participation  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term 
and  therefore  a physical  participation  ” (Dogma, tile,  French 
trs.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  476,  translated  by  myself).  Thus  not  only  the 
language  of  the  mystics  but  the  very  words  of  Scripture  itself 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  325 

are  a misleading  exaggeration,  unless  [reception ism  be  true.  Re- 
ceptionism,  therefore,  far  from  being  a pantheistic  exaggeration, 
is  the  unanimous  teaching  of  the  mystics,  the  “ orthodoxy  ” of 
mystical  theology ; it  is  also  the  doctrine  of  dogmatic  theology 
from  the  New  Testament  to  the  best  modern  text-books.  In  this 
reception  of  the  Divine  Being  and  Activity  in  and  through  the 
being  and  activity  of  the  soul,  and  in  this  reception  alone,  is  and 
will  be  fulfilled  that  participation  of  the  Divine  Nature  to  which 
the  Christian  is  calbd  and  has  been  supernaturally  exalted. 

We  have  seen  from  the  above  teaching  of  theologians  that 
sanctifying  grace  even  in  its  lowest  and  most  ordinary  degree 
involves  a true  participation  and  reception  by  the  soul  of  the  life 
of  God  and  therefore  of  His  self-knowledge  and  self-love,  and  that 
every  act  done  in  and  from  grace  (here  actual  grace  is  meant)  is 
a certain  reception  of  the  Divine  Self-knowledge  and  Will  (see 
Scheeben,  Dogmaiik,  French  translation,  vol.  iii.,  pp.  528-531). 
This  reception  is  not,  however,  manifest  as  it  is  in  mystical  union 
and  more  perfectly  in  the  transforming  union.  It  is  also  far  more 
partial  and,  so  to  say,  external.  It  is  a fundamental  apprehension 
of  the  Divine  Act  by  the  central  ego,  not,  as  in  this  supreme  union, 
an  entire  possession  of  the  latter  by  the  former.  The  principle  of 
the  soul’s  activity  is  not,  as  in  this  union,  God-received  by  the  soul, 
but  the  soul  in  supernatural  union  with  God.  Nevertheless  the 
life  of  Grace  is  essentially  a reception  of  the  Divine  life  and  activity 
by  and  in  the  soul,  a reception  which  increases  in  degree  and  in 
completeness  of  permeation,  and  therefore  in  consciousness,  until 
it  is  made  perfect  in  the  beatific  vision  wherein  the  life  of  the  sold 
is  wholly  a reception  of  God’s  Self-vision  and  Self-love  and  in 
these  of  His  Being,  as  He  eternally  is  and  acts  in  the  ineffable 
fecundity  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  “The  elevation,”  Scheeben 
tells  us,  “of  the  created  image  of  God  ” (the  soul)  “to  a deiform 
likeness  is  fundamentally  a copy  and  consequently  a multi- 
plication, extension  and  manifestation,  indeed  in  a certain  sense, 
a repetition  of  the  eternal  generation  ” (of  the  Son,  the  Word). 
It  reveals  externally  the  infinite  fecundity  of  this  generation  in 
itself  and  the  magnificence  of  its  product.  Moreover,  when  con- 
sidered formally  as  a communication  of  the  Divine  Nature  by  love, 
it  is  a reflection,  multiplication,  extension  and  manifestation  of  the 
eternal  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  unfolding  of  the  dei- 
form life  ” (the  life  of  grace)  “ in  the  creature  by  the  knowledge 
and  the  love  of  God  as  He  is  in  Himself  presents  a reflection  of  the 


326  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

eternal  productions  of  the  Word  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a reflection 
wherein  the  divine  productions  are  formally  recognised  and 
honoured  as  such  ” (translation  from  the  French  translation  of 
Scheeben,  Dogmatik.  vol.  iii.,  sec.  1000,  p.  745). 

This  reflection  and  extension  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  in  the  grace- 
union  with  God,  and  His  special  Self-communication  and  indwell- 
ing in  the  sold  constituted  by  that  union,  so  secret  and  so  potential 
in  its  lower  degrees,  is  supremely  realised  and  manifested1  in  the 
act  of  the  mystical  marriage,  as  it  has  been  explained  above.  For 
we  have  seen  the  act  of  this  union  to  consist  in  the  reception  of  the 
Divine  Self-knowledge  in  the  cognition  of  the  soul,  of  the  Divine 
Self-love  in  the  volition  of  the  soul,  both  receptions  proceeding 
from  the  Divine  possession  of  the  central  substance.  The  genera 
tion  of  the  Son  from  the  Father  as  the  hypostatic  expression  of  His 
Self-knowledge  is  reflected  and  extended  or  continued  in  the 
reception  of  the  Divine  Self-knowledge  by  the  soul,  thus  fully 
constituted  the  Adoptive  Son  of  God.  The  procession  of  the 
Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  their  mutual  love,  the  Divine 
Self-love,  since  the  ground  of  that  mutual  love  is  the  common 
Deity  of  both,  is  reflected  and  extended  or  continued  in  the  recep- 
tion of  the  Divine  Self-love  by  the  soul,  thus  fully  constituted  the 
temple  of  the  indwelling  Spirit.  Moreover,  in  the  soul’s  reception 
of  the  Divine  Self-knowledge  the  Word  is  given  to  the  soul  and 
the  soul  is  specially  united  to  the  Word.  In  like  manner  in  the 
soul’s  reception  of  the  Divine  Self-love  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to 
the  sold  and  the  soul  is  specially  united  with  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Thus  is  the  transforming  union  a manifestation  and  extension  of 
the  inner  fecundity  of  the  Godhead,  the  Divine  life  in  which  are 
grounded  the  processions  constitutive  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  and 
thus  is  the  soul  in  that  union  an  external  and  created  reflection 
and  continuation  of  the  Blessed  Trinity. 

As  the  purgation  of  the  soul  from  its  natural  selfhood  is  sub- 
stantially one  and  the  same  in  the  night  of  spirit  and  in  Purgatory, 
so  also  is  this  participation  and  reception  of  the  Divine  life  by  the 
functions  of  the  soul  whereby  the  activities  of  the  soul  become 
the  activity  of  God  received  in  them  identical  in  substance  and 
principle  in  the  mystical  marriage  and  in  the  beatific  vision.  If 
the  night  of  spirit  is  the  anticipation  and  revelation  of  Purgatory, 
so  is  the  transforming  union  the  foretaste,  revelation  and  be- 

1 That  is,  supremely  in  this  mortal  life.  The  unveiled  vision  of  heaven  is  a 
still  higher  and  more  complete  realisation  and  manifestation. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  327 

ginning  of  Heaven.  The  transforming  love  which  is  God’s  love 
received  in  the  soul  through  its  participation  of  the  Divine  Self- 
love  is  the  beginning  of  the  beatific  love,  and  the  veiled  but 
intense  and  potent  consciousness  of  God  received  by  the  soul 
through  its  participation  of  the  Divine  self-consciousness  is  the 
dawn  of  the  beatific  vision. 

We  must  not,  however,  imagine  that  the  activity  of  the  soul  is 
substantially  destroyed  by  being  thus  rendered  a reception  and 
participation  of  the  Divine  Activity.  Even  in  heaven  “ the  will 
of  the  soul  will  not  be  destroyed  ” ( Canticle , st.  38).  Neither  in 
mystical  marriage  nor  in  heaven  will  the  acquired  habits  of  know- 
ledge be  lost  by  their  subsumption  by  the  higher  wisdom  “ of  the 
Divine  Knowledge  ” ( Canticle , st.  26). 

In  the  fifteenth  stanza  of  the  Transformation  of  the  Soul  in 
God  Mother  Cecilia  tells  us  that  the  natural  operations,  far  from 
being  destroyed,  are  perfected  when  thus  occupied  and  filled  by 
the  operation  of  God.  In  the  third  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame 
St  John,  speaking  of  the  illumination  of  the  soul  by  the  splendours 
of  Divine  knowledge,  describes  the  co-operation  of  the  soul  in  this 
illumination  with  the  Divine  influx  of  which  it  is  the  receptacle  by 
the  simile  of  inflamed  air.  “ This  illumination,”  he  says,  “ of 
splendours  wherein  the  soul  shines  forth  together  with  the  heat  of 
love  is  not  like  that  caused  by  material  lamps  which  illuminate 
with  their  flames  the  surrounding  objects  . . . for  the  soul  is 
within  these  splendours.  . . . Nay,  further,  it  is  . . . transformed 
into  and  made  these  splendours  ...  so  that  it  is  like  the  air 
inside  a flame,  enkindled  and  transformed  into  the  flame.  For 
the  flame  is  simply  inflamed  air,  and  the  motions  and  splendours 
caused  by  that  flame  belong  neither  to  the  air  alone  nor  to  the  fire 
alone  . . . but  to  the  air  and  fire  together,  and  the  fire  makes  the 
air  which  it  holds  inflamed  within  itself  accomplish  these  effects. 
After  this  fashion  we  are  to  understand  that  the  soul  with  its 
powers  is  illuminated  within  the  Divine  splendours. 

“ The  motions  of  this  Divine  flame  are  the  work  not  of  the  soul 
alone,  that  has  been  transformed  into  the  flames  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  nor  of  the  Holy  Ghost  alone,  but  of  both  together,  for  the 
Holy  Ghost  moves  the  soul  as  the  fire  moves  the  inflamed  air.” 

The  interior  spiritual  functions  or  faculties  are  indeed,  as  we 
saw,  but  aspects  of  the  central  ego.  Since  that  ego  is  not  destroyed 
by  this  union  with  God,  neither  can  they  be  destroyed  by  it.  We 
should  say  rather  that  when  the  transforming  union  is  in  act  the 


328  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

operations  of  the  soul  proceed  from  God  as  their  active  principle 
and  from  the  soul’s  own  function  or  activity  as  a passive  principle 
receiving  the  Divine  action.  Hence,  as  St  John  tells  us,  the  good 
works  of  the  soul  “proceed  from  God  and  the  soul  together,”1 
from  God  as  the  primary  agent  or  first  principle,  from  the  soul  as 
the  recipient  which  though  passive  in  relation  to  the  Divine  opera- 
tion received,  nevertheless  is  active  in  that  very  reception.  More- 
over, so  long  as  this  life  endures  and  the  vision  of  God  is  veiled, 
this  reception  is  free  and  therefore  meritorious.2  Pantheism 
positing  the  Divine  action  denies  the  created  human  reception  of 
that  action.  Catholicism  in  its  completeness  of  positive  teaching 
affirms  the  co-existence  and  co-operation  of  both.  Such  co- 
existence and  co-operation  exist  indeed  in  every  act  that  proceeds 
from  Divine  grace.  In  the  earlier  stages  of  union,  however,  the 
work  of  grace  was  but  to  set  in  motion  the  active  principle  of 
the  soul  to  work  after  its  own  natural  and  limited  fashion.  In 
the  transforming  union,  and  a fortiori  in  heaven,  the  Divine  influx 
has  become  itself  the  first  principle  of  the  action  which  is  effected 
in  the  soul  in  a Divine  and  unlimited  fashion,  and  the  activity  of 
the  soul  is  now  but  the  reception  of  that  Divine  operation.  In 
the  ordinary  activities  that  proceed  from  grace  we  may  say  that 
God  causes  the  soul  to  act.  In  this  perfect  union  God  rather  acts 
in  the  soul,  whose  action  is  now  simply  the  reception  of  His.  This 
change  of  proportion  between  the  action  of  God  and  that  of  the 
soul  has  been  gradually  effected  by  the  destruction  of  the  limits 
formerly  opposed  to  the  Divine  action  by  the  natural  operations 
of  the  soid  arising  out  of  its  own  created  and  therefore  limited 
selfhood,  which  was  then  their  first  principle.  Nothing  hinders 
now  the  complete  possession  of  the  psychical  functions  by  the 
operation  of  God,  which  is  effected  in,  through  and  with  these 
functions  whenever  the  transforming  union  is  in  act. 

Thus  in  this  transforming  union  the  activity  of  the  soul  is 
made  perfect  in  its  entire  reception  of  the  activity  of  God,  and 
in  this  union  are  fulfilled  the  words  of  St  Augustine:  “When 
I shall  with  my  whole  self  cleave  to  Thee  . . . my  life  shall  wholly 
live,  as  wholly  full  of  Thee  ” ( Confessions , x.  39,  trs.  Pusey). 

The  degrees  of  grace  and  hence  of  reception  found  in  the  acts 

1 Canticle,  st.  30. 

2 Ruysbroeck  indeed  seems  to  teach  the  contrary  (Sparkling  Stone,  chap,  ix).- 
If  he  is  right,  his  assertion  can  only  be  understood  partially  of  the  actual  love 
of  God  divinely  received  in  the  act  of  this  union. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  329 

of  the  soul,  though  normally  passing  imperceptibly  one  into 
another,  may  be  roughly  distinguished  as  the  six  following  : — 

1.  Morally  good  or  indifferent  acts  elicited  in  a state  of  grace 
by  purely  natural  motives.  These  receive  some  influx  of  grace 
and  merit  from  the  radical  union  of  the  will  with  God  in  charity, 
which  charity  commands  and  virtually  motives  the  substance  at 
least  of  these  acts.  The  act,  however,  is  itself  essentially  natural, 
albeit  united  radically  with  the  supernatural  grace-union  of  the 
soul  with  God,  as  being  the  act  of  a soul  thus  united  (see  Terrien, 
La  Grace  et  la  Gloire,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  26-55,  Bk.  VII.,  chaps,  iii.  and  iv). 

2.  Acts  accomplished  with  an  actual  co-operation  and  influx  of 
grace,  but  principled  by  the  natural  selfhood  in  union  with  God. 

3.  Acts  accomplished  in  virtue  of  special  illuminations  and 
motions  of  grace.  These  are  explained  at  length  by  Father  Baker 
{Holy  Wisdom,  second  section  of  first  treatise).  In  these  acts  the 
direct  motive  is  a special  operation  and  reception  of  God,  Whose 
share  in  the  act  is  thus  larger  than  in  the  precedent  degree. 
Natural  selfhood,  however,  is  still  the  predominant  active  principle 
of  the  act,  not,  as  in  mystic  union,  a predominantly  passive  and 
recipient  principle. 

4.  Mystical  unions  lower  than  the  transforming  union.  In 
these  the  Divine  operation  and  its  reception  are  evident  in  the 
union  itself,  and  are  more  complete  and  interior,  possessing  and 
permeating  the  very  substance  of  the  act  or  union. 

5.  The  acts  of  the  transforming  union.  Here  the  Divine 
operation  proceeds  from  a continuous  and  conscious  permeation 
and  possession  of  the  centre  by  God,  and  is  thus  far  more  complete 
and  interior  even  than  in  the  last  degree. 

6.  The  beatific  vision -union.  In  this  the  soul  has  naught  of 
its  own.  Its  entire  life  is  the  reception  of  the  divine  life.  Hence 
all  its  knowledge  and  will  are  receptions  of  the  divine  self-know- 
ledge and  self-will,  without  any  limit  of  natural  extra-godly  life  or 
operation  remaining.1  This  interpretation  of  the  act  of  spiritual 
marriage  or  transforming  union,  as  essentially  consisting  in  a 

1 To  prevent  any  possible  misunderstanding  I beg  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind 
that  this  increasing  operation  of  God  in  and  through  the  operation  of  the  soul, 
until  that  operation  becomes  wholly  a reception  and  participation  of  the  divine 
operation,  is  in  all  its  degrees  effected  not  by  any  change  in  the  essentially 
immutable  Godhead,  but  by  the  action  of  created  grace.  This  created  grace 
establishes  a new  relationship  of  the  soul  to  God,  whereby  it  thus  receives  and 
participates  in  His  Being  and  operation.  In  the  final  degree  this  work  is  effected 
by  the  completion  and  crown  of  grace — namely,  the  Light  of  Glory. 


330  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

reception  of  the  Divine  activity — that  is,  of  the  Godhead  Itself — in 
the  functions  or  activities  of  the  soul,  is  confirmed  by  an  instruc- 
tive analogy.  For  thus  understood  the  mystical  marriage  reveals 
to  us  the  spiritual  significance  of  a type  principle  which  runs 
through  the  higher  orders  of  natural  being,  the  principle  of  sex. 
It  is  undeniable  that  unhealthy  Gnostic  speculations  have  been 
rife  in  this  province.  Nevertheless  we  cannot  suppose  a principle 
so  potent  and  so  far-reaching  to  lack  a profound  spiritual  meaning. 
The  principle  of  sex  begins  first  with  plants  and  is  thenceforward 
continuously  present  until  it  reaches  humanity.  In  human  nature 
sex  differentiation  transcends  its  physiological  basis  and  enters 
the  domain  of  psychology.1  The  difference  between  man  and 
woman  is  far  deeper  and  wider  than  the  corporeal  distinction. 
The  contrary  assertion  of  Plato  in  the  Republic  was  an  error,  an 
error  which  has  been  unhappily  resuscitated  by  the  more  extreme 
feminists  of  our  own  day.  Men  and  women  are  naturally  com- 
plementary in  sold,  as  well  as  in  body.  Even  where  physical 
union  has  been  altogether  transcended,  as  in  the  case  of  priests 
and  nuns,  indeed  in  the  religious  sphere  as  such,  the  masculine 
and  feminine  elements  of  human  nature  continue  this  mutual  co- 
operation and  supplement  of  their  distinctive  characters.  Nearly 
all  the  great  movements  in  ecclesiastical  history  have  been  the 
joint  work  of  men  and  women.  Every  great  order  save  the  Jesuit 
has  had  its  feminine  counterpart.  (If,  indeed,  there  are  no 
Jesuitesses  in  name,  they  exist  in  fact,  in  the  nuns  of  the  Sacred 
Heart.)  St  John  Chrysostom  is  assisted  by  the  saintly  deaconess 
Olympias,  St  Benedict  has  a fellow-worker  in  St  Scholastica,  St 
Francis  finds  sympathy,  understanding  and  support  in  St  Clare, 
St  John  of  the  Cross  carries  out  the  Carmelite  Reform  in  conjunc- 
tion with  St  Teresa,  and  St  Francis  of  Sales  is  for  ever  joined  in  his 
work  and  in  our  remembrance  with  St  Jean  de  Chantal.  Even  in 
the  supreme  work  of  our  Redemption  through  the  Incarnation 
and  death  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  a woman  co-operates  most 
intimately,  Mary  the  second  Eve.  Now  whether  we  regard  sex 
on  its  lower  and  transitory  physical  plane,  or  on  its  higher  and 
enduring  spiritual  plane,  we  find  that  it  represents  the  distinction 
and  complement  of  donation  and  reception.2  It  is  essentially, 

1 This  has,  of  course,  begun  in  the  case  of  the  higher  animals,  but  in  them  the 
physical  differentiation  enormously  outweighs  in  importance  the  psychological. 

2 Modern  physiology  in  opposition  to  the  mediaeval  belief  (see  Dante,  Ping.,  25) 
teaches,  it  is  true,  the  equal  co-operation  of  the  female  element  in  the  formation 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  331 

therefore,  a type  and  expression  of  these  two  fundamental  aspects 
of  reality,  action  or  donation  and  passivity  or  reception.  It  may 
perhaps  be  asked  how  there  can  be  a co-operation  of  the  sexes  if 
woman  is  the  receptive  and  man  the  active  element.  But  we  must 
remember  that  reception  is  itself  an  activity,  modifying  by  its  own 
conditions  that  which  it  receives,  a passive-activity,  if  I may  so 
term  it.  A further  answer  is  surely  to  be  found  in  the  nature 
of  woman’s  contribution.  That  contribution  is  essentially  the 
faithful  conservation  of  the  ideas  and  energy  received  in  the  first 
place  from  the  man.  In  the  stress  and  fatigue  of  practical  life  the 
man  is  apt  to  lose  the  first  clearness  of  his  perception,  the  first 
strength  of  his  impulse.  He  finds  these  again  stored  in  the  woman. 
St  Francis,  for  example,  in  his  times  of  despondency  and  apparent 
failure  found  in  St  Clare  the  fresh  and  full  ideal  and  life  which 
he  had  originally  imparted  to  her.  The  female  sex  is  thus  the 
treasure-house  wherein  is  stored  and  guarded  the  spiritual  riches 
gathered  by  masculine  activity.  In  this  work  of  faithful  conser- 
vation, represented  by  Mary  when  “ she  kept  all  her  son’s  words  in 
her  heart,”  is  manifest  the  essential  character  of  womanhood  as 
reception,  for  perfect  reception  implies  conservation.1  The  union 
and  mutual  co-operation  of  the  two  sexes  on  all  its  planes  and  in 
all  its  forms  is  thus  symbolic  of  the  union  between  the  soul  and 
God.  For  we  have  seen  that  in  this  union  the  soul  is  the  recipient 
of  the  Divine  Being,  which  is  pure  energy — the  actus  purus — and 
that  the  higher,  closer  and  more  intense  the  union  the  more  com- 
pletely is  the  soul  the  receptacle  of  that  Divine  activity.  The 
union  between  Christ  and  the  Church  is  symbolised  as  a marriage 
for  the  same  reason,  since  the  Church  is  the  receptacle  of  the 
activity  and  self-donation  of  Christ,  her  life  a full  and  continuous 
reception  of  His  life.  St  Anselm  raises  the  question  why  we 
should  not  as  well  represent  the  relationship  between  the  first  and 
second  Persons  of  the  Trinity  by  the  relation  of  Mother  and 
Daughter  as  by  that  of  Father  and  Son.  The  answer  is,  I think, 
that  a feminine  relationship  would  be  contrary  to  the  nature  of 

of  the  embryo.  This,  however,  does  not  affect  the  fact  that  in  generation  itself 
the  male  element  is  donation-action — -the  female  reception  and  qua  reception 
passivity,  although,  to  use  an  oxymoron,  an  active-passivity. 

1 We  must,  however,  bear  in  mind  that  in  the  souls  of  many  men  there  is  an 
element  of  distinctively  feminine  character  and  in  the  souls  of  many  women  a 
distinctively  masculine  element.  These  psychological  sex  gradations  will  be  most 
of  all  apparent  in  the  sphere  of  spiritual  life  and  work,  and  will  modify  the  broad 
distinction  insisted  upon  in  the  text. 


332  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

God  as  pure  activity.  The  creature  differs  from  the  creator  es- 
sentially in  its  potentiality  and  consequent  need  to  receive  from 
without  in  order  to  self-actualisation,  whereas  the  Creator  is  in 
Himself  the  entire  and  eternal  Actualisation  of  His  Godhead. 
The  sold  is  only  then  fully  actualised  to  the  utmost  of  its  capacity, 
when  it  is  wholly  recipient  of  the  Divine  activity,  as  we  have  seen 
it  to  be  in  this  mystical  marriage.  The  use  of  the  term  mystical 
marriage  is  thus  explained  and  justified  by  this  interpretation, 
and  by  this  interpretation  alone.  The  fact  of  this  mystical 
marriage  and  its  fulness,  the  beatific  union,  thus  discovers  the 
inner  significance  of  the  type  principle  of  sex,  and  conversely  the 
existence  of  this  principle  in  its  enormous  depth  and  scope  is  a 
powerful  witness  to  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  supernatural  union 
of  which  it  is  the  analogue  and  symbol. 

Further  light  will  be  thrown  on  this  Divine  Action  in  and 
through  the  central  functions  of  the  soul  by  the  consideration  of 
certain  passages  in  which  St  John  and  Mother  Cecilia  attempt  to 
give  an  indication  of  its  character,  as  experienced  respectively  in 
either  function,  as  experienced  in  the  understanding  or  spiritual 
consciousness,  and  as  experienced  in  the  will.  Of  these  two  the 
Divine  Action  in  and  through  the  will,  the  will-union,  is  the  most 
fundamental  aspect  of  the  transforming  union.  I shall  therefore 
speak  first  of  this  reception  of  the  Divine  Love  in  the  will.  In  the 
thirty-eighth  stanza  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle  St  John  points  out 
that  in  heaven  “ as  the  understanding  of  the  soul  will  be  the 
understanding  of  God  and  its  will  the  will  of  God,  so  its  love  will 
also  be  His  love.  Though  in  heaven  the  will  of  the  sold  is  not 
destroyed,  it  is  so  intimately  united  with  the  power  of  the  will  of 
God  that  it  loves  Him  as  strongly  and  as  perfectly  as  it  is  loved  of 
Him,  both  wills  being  united  in  one  sole  will  and  one  sole  love 
of  God.  Thus  the  soul  loves  God  with  the  will  and  strength  of  God 
Himself,  being  made  one  with  that  very  strength  of  love  where- 
with itself  is  loved  of  God.  This  strength  is  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  Whom  the  soul  is  there  transformed.”  St  John  proceeds  to 
say  that  in  this  state  of  mystical  marriage  the  soul  loves  in  a 
certain  way  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  Who  is  the  giver  of  its  love. 
Therefore  the  love  of  the  soul  in  mystical  marriage  is  the  be- 
ginning of  the  infused  Self-love  of  God  that  will  be  its  love  in 
heaven,  and  its  love  now  is  thus  an  infusion  into  the  will  of  God’s 
own  self-love.  “ These  souls,”  writes  Mother  Cecilia,  “ love  God 
no  longer  with  their  natural  love  alone,  but  also  with  the  very 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  333 

love  of  Him  Whom  they  love,  which  He  infuses  into  them.  Hence 
it  is  that  they  no  longer  love  Him  solely  or  chiefly  with  their  own 
acts.  They  receive  and  support  God’s  own  love  in  themselves  ” 
(Union).  “ I saw,”  says  Blessed  Angela,  “that  it  was  not  I that 
loved  . . . but  that  the  love  was  from  God  alone  ” ( Visions  and 
Instructions,  cli.  xxv.,  p.  81).  In  this  infusion  of  God’s  own  love 
into  the  soul  the  transforming  union  is  especially  grounded.  For 
it  is  as  the  root  or  apex  of  the  will  that  the  centre  is  consciously 
possessed  by  God  in  the  habitual  union,  and  thus  the  will  is  the 
function  through  which  especially  the  central  ego  grasps  and 
attains  the  unlimited  Being  and  Goodness  that  is  God.  Hence 
the  act  of  this  union  is  primarily  an  act  of  the  will  in  love,  the 
Divine  self-love  received  in  the  will.  “ The  act  of  this  union,” 
St  John  tells  us,  “ consists  more  hi  the  inflamed  fire  of  love  than 
in  aught  else  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  2).  The  reception  in  the  will 
of  God’s  own  love  is  thus  the  predominant  aspect  and  constituent 
of  the  act  of  the  transforming  union.  This  infused  fire  of  Divine 
love,  so  painful  in  the  night  of  spirit,  is  now  a joy  inexpressibly 
deep  because  it  is  satisfied  by  the  veiled  fruition  of  its  infinite 
object.  St  John  speaks  of  this  fire  of  love  as  a sweet  wound. 
“ Inasmuch,”  he  says,  “ as  this  Divine  fire  now  holds  the  soul 
transformed  into  itself,  not  only  does  that  soul  feel  a wound,  but  is 
made  one  entire  wound  of  ardent  fire.  It  is  a strange  and  note- 
worthy fact  that  although  this  fire  of  God  is  so  ardent  and  powerful 
that  it  could  burn  up  a thousand  worlds  with  greater  ease  than  our 
earthly  fire  a wisp  of  flax,  it  does  not  consume  and  destroy  the  soul 
wherein  it  bums  after  this  fashion,  nor  even  causes  that  soul  the 
least  affliction.  On  the  contrary,  it  deifies  and  delights  that  soul 
in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  the  love,  glowing  and  burning 
sweetly  within  it  ” (Living  Flame,  st.  2).  There  is  now  no  longer 
any  limiting  attachment  to  any  particular  created  good  for  the 
sake  of  its  own  limited  self,  and  therefore  no  limit  to  bar  the  free 
and  full  reception  of  theunlimited  love — that  is, the  unlimited  God. 
There  is  no  conflict  and  therefore  no  pain.  Mother  Cecilia  echoes 
this  teaching.  “ This  light,”  she  says,  “ is  a Divine  fire  that  con- 
sumes without  burning  and  tormenting  like  created  fire.  Little 
by  little  the  soul  melts  away  and  is  consumed  in  this  Divine  fire, 
receiving  ever  more  completely  the  qualities  and  properties  of  Him 
Who  makes  this  communication  to  it.  He  is  in  His  very  sub- 
stance light  and  (ire  of  love  most  potent,  most  strong  and  most 
beautiful  ” ( Transformation,  st.  1).  Elsewhere  she  describes 


334  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

this  same  infusion  of  love  under  the  image  of  air.  The  stanza 
proceeds  to  tell  us  that  God’s  “ Divine  Spirit  stirs  a breeze  of  love 
and  unites  the  soul  with  its  Beloved.”  the  Triune  God.  “ The 
love  of  the  Father  and  Son  is  an  eternal  love  that  is  essentially  God. 
Hence  the  true  God  that  communicates  Himself  to  the  soul  and 
bieathes  in  it  unites  it  with  Himself  and  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son  in  this  sovereign  delight.  The  soul  is  conscious  of  this 
breathing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  . . . The  Holy  Ghost  effects  this 
stirring  in  order  to  manifest  Himself  and  to  make  His  presence 
felt  in  this  Divine  delight.  . . . The  sold  in  whom  the  Holy 
Trinity  dwells  . . . receives  unceasingly  these  Divine  breathings  ” 
(Transformation,  st.  9).  In  the  third  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame 
St  John  describes  how  from  the  supernatural  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  attributes,  now  communicated  to  the  soul,  there  arises  a 
fire  of  love.  Each  attribute  infuses  into  the  will  a special  love 
and  all  together  unite  into  one  immense  fire  of  soul  that  absorbs 
the  entire  soul.  It  is  surely  to  this  conflagration  of  love  that  we 
may  apply  a passage  in  the  second  stanza  of  this  same  work  where 
St  John  tells  us  that  “ the  entire  universe  appears  to  the  soul  a sea 
of  love,  wherein  it  is  drowned,  neither  can  it  discover  any  term 
or  end  where  this  love  ceases.” 

Indeed  the  will  or  conative  activity  is  now  one  boundless  love 
of  the  unlimited  goodness.  Hitherto  love  has  been  limited  by  the 
limited  goods  and  by  the  limited  notions  of  the  Divine  Goodness 
which  alone  are  cognisable  by  the  natural  understanding.  Now 
the  will  partakes  in  the  unlimited  self-love  of  the  Unlimited. 
“ Nothing,”  says  Mother  Cecilia,  41  brings  the  soul  so  nigh  to  God, 
nothing  guides  it  more  surely  to  Him,  than  love,  by  which  it  is 
united  with  Him.  . . . From  the  beginning  love  was  emitting 
sparks  .of  itself  whereby  to  enkindle  the  soul.  It  was  love  that 
burnt  up  and  consumed  all  the  obstacles  that  kept  back  the  soul 
on  this  journey,  and  it  is  love  that  is  leading  it  blindly  in  this  Divine 
darkness  that  is  the  light  of  God.  This  is  the  work  proper  to  love. 
This  blind  power  guides  the  soul  better  and  teaches  it  more, 
because  it  leads  the  soul  to  a larger  possession  of  God  in  the  union 
with  Him  than  all  the  lights  and  revelations  together.  . . . Love 
. . . gives  the  soul  more  of  God  than  any  other  means  and  finally 
unites  it  immediately  with  Him  after  a different  and  more  special 
manner  of  union  than  it  previously  possessed”  (Trans.,  st.  II). 
Yes,  truly,  love  is  the  beginning,  the  middle  and  the  end  of  the 
way  to  God.  It  is  a blind  power,  as  Mother  Cecilia  terms  it, 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  335 

because  it  ever  transcends  the  limits  of  clear  vision  and  involves 
an  element  of  faith  in  its  apprehension  of  that  which  it  cannot 
comprehend.  This  is  true  even  of  human  love.  Two  persons  do 
not  fall  in  love  because  they  know  each  other’s  worth.  Their  love 
is  a faith  in  a worth  not  distinctly  seen.  Knowledge  arises  later, 
for  knowledge  of  souls  is  born  of  love,  not  love  of  knowledge.1 
The  pragmatists  would  extend  this  to  all  knowledge.  Though  we 
cannot  grant  this,  it  is  at  least  true  that  the  lover  is  always  a 
pragmatist.  In  human  love,  indeed,  the  faith  of  love  may  be,  and 
alas  ! too  often  is,  an  illusion,  a credulity.  The  particular  object 
does  not  possess  the  worth  that  love  believed  to  be  there.  But 
the  instinct  of  love  is  not  deceived.  There  is  an  unlimited  worth 
behind  and  beyond  the  limited  created  values  which,  if  taken  as 
absolute,  are  illusory.  In  and  beyond  the  unworthy  human  be- 
loved is  the  one  Beloved  of  all  creatures,  Whose  presence  is  dimly 
felt  in  the  earthly  love.  In  the  love  of  God,  the  unlimited,  the  faith 
of  love  cannot  be  misplaced  and  deceived.  In  this  mystical 
marriage,  when  the  soul’s  love  has  become  a reception  and  partici- 
pation of  the  substantial  love  Himself,  it  finds  its  full  satisfaction, 
and  this  fruition  of  love  fills  the  soul.  “ My  only  occupation  is 
love,”  sings  the  soul  in  St  John’s  Canticle.  “ It  is  quite  clear,” 
he  says,  “ that  the  soul  which  has  attained  the  spiritual  betrothal  ” 
(this  must  be  understood  here  of  the  mystical  marriage)  “ knows 
nothing  else  but  the  love  of  the  Bridegroom  and  the  delights 
thereof,  because  it  has  arrived  at  perfection,  the  form  and  sub- 
stance of  which  is  love.  . . . The  more  a soul  loves,  the  more 
perfect  it  is  in  its  love,  and  hence  it  follows  that  the  soul  which  is 
already  perfect  is,  if  we  may  say  so,  all  love  ; all  its  actions  are 
love,  all  its  energies  and  strength  are  occupied  in  love  ” ( Canticle , 
st.  27).  So  he  proceeds,  repeating  again  and  again  through  the 
entire  passage  the  dear  name  of  love,  like  a composer  who  recurs 
continually  to  one  motif.  You  would  think  the  passage  a descrip- 
tion of  the  first  days  of  two  lovers,  when  the  hours  are  filled  with 
nothing  but  the  expression  of  their  love,  when  all  they  see,  hear 
and  do  is  significant  only  of  that  love  which  gives  all  things  done 
or  felt  a new  meaning  and  worth  hitherto  unknown,  and  when  for 
them  the  entire  universe  moves  around  a new  centre,  the  supreme, 
nay,  the  sole,  reality,  their  love.  This  auroral  glory,  doomed  as 
it  is  to  fade  all  too  quickly,  is  but  a dim  reflection  and  a faint 

1 Love  is  indeed  preceded  by  an  obscure  intuition  or  instinct.  That,  however, 
is  not  clear  knowledge. 


336  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

indication  of  the  Divine  rapture  of  love  that  fills  the  soul  in  this 
state  of  spiritual  marriage.  Here  there  is  no  illusion,  no  decay,  no 
end.  It  is  the  beginning  and  first-fruits  of  an  eternal  love,  this 
boundless  love  that  fills  the  soul  to  overflowing.  Love  working 
through  faith  has  drawn  the  soul  onward  and  outward  beyond  the 
limits  of  self  and  creatures  into  the  unlimited  love  that  is  indeed 
the  one  Absolute  Reality,  underlying  and  transcending  all  things, 
the  cause,  the  meaning  and  the  worth  of  all  positive  being.  To 
this  progress  of  the  soul  in  blind  love  to  the  Divine  Union  we  may 
apply  the  wonderful  lines  of  Shelley  that  describe  the  journey  of 
Asia  and  Panthea  to  the  secret  cave  of  Demogorgon  under  the 
image  of  a boat  guided  seaward  by  sweet  music.  By  the  music  we 
may  understand  love,  by  the  boat  the  soul,  and  by  the  ocean  God. 

My  soul  is  an  enchanted  boat 
Which  like  a sleeping  swan  doth  float 
Upon  the  silver  waves  of  thy  sweet  singing. 

It  seems  to  float  ever,  for  ever, 

Upon  that  many-winding  river, 

Between  mountains,  woods,  abysses, 

A Paradise  of  wildernesses  ; 

Till  like  one  in  slumber  bound 

Borne  to  the  ocean  I float  down,  around 

Into  a sea  profound  of  ever-spreading  sound, 

And  we  sail  on,  away  afar, 

Without  a course,  without  a star, 

But  by  the  instinct  of  sweet  music  driven  ; 

Where  never  mortal  pinnace  glided. 

The  boat  of  my  desire  is  guided. 

Realms  where  the  air  we  breathe  is  love , 

Which  in  the  winds  and  on  the  waves  doth  move, 

Harmonising  this  earth  with  what  we  feel  above. 

Prometheus  Unbound,  Act  ii.,  sc.  5. 

“ Realms  where  the  air  we  breathe  is  love  ” : the  transforming 
union  is  this  new  world,  the  Kingdom  of  God  now  come  in  the 
fulness  of  power.  All  is  now  love,  for  all  is  known  to  reflect  love 
and  to  subserve  love,  to  be  love’s  gift  and  love’s  ordering,  even 
that  which  opposes  love  most.  In  this  love  all  things  are  made 
one  and  known  to  be  one,  for  all  the  barriers  of  created  limitations, 
by  which  they  excluded  each  the  other,  are  destroyed  in  the 
Absolute  Unity  of  the  unlimited  love.  All  things  are  thus  seen 
to  be  harmonised  and  unified  in  the  unity  of  love,  whence  they  pro- 
ceed and  whither  they  tend,  the  ground  of  their  being  the  law  of 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  337 

their  becoming  and  their  final  end.  Life  itself  is  now  known  to  be 
love,  life  uncreated,  love  absolute,  created  life  the  offspring,  the 
image  and  the  minister  of  that  love,  at  which  it  aims  in  all  its 
forms  and  degrees,  save  only  the  sinful  will,  and  even  that  serves 
perforce. 

Now  at  last  the  soul  understands  that  love  is  the  explanation 
of  that  experience  which  is  often  so  painful  and  so  incompre- 
hensible. Like  Dame  Julian,  it  knows  that  “ love  was  His  mean- 
ing,” and  that  theie  neither  is  nor  can  be  any  other.  Faith  still 
remains,  for  the  soul  cannot  yet  see  how  this  is  so,  how  evil  can  be 
so  wholly  subject  to  love  that  it  does  not  overthrow  or  disturb  its 
absolute  rule.  But  it  apprehends,  with  an  intuition  deeper  and 
more  certain  than  any  natural  knowledge,  that  so  it  is  and  so  it 
must  be.  For  love  the  soul  has  lost  all  things  and  itself,  and  in 
losing  them  has  lost  only  the  limits  that  barred  it  from  the  infinite 
love  that  is  All  without  limit.  In  this  boundless  love  the  soul 
has  found  itself  and  all  things,  life  immune  from  age  and  death, 
worth  supreme,  indefectible,  unlimited,  reality  perfect  and  entire, 
God  Himself.  It  has  found  Love,  and  “ Love  is  enough .” 

From  this  glimpse  of  the  perfect  will-union  of  love  we  must 
now  return  to  consider  the  conscious  or  cognitive  aspect  of  the 
act  of  union,  its  intuition.  This  intuition  is  a supernatural 
knowledge  far  surpassing  any  and  every  kind  of  natural  knowledge. 
“ When  the  understanding,”  says  Mother  Cecilia,  “ and  natural 
reason  have  passed  away  . . . the  things  of  God  are  understood 
supernaturally,  above  all  understanding  and  all  reason  ” (Union). 
In  the  twenty-sixth  stanza  of  the  Spiritual  Canticle  St  John  speaks 
of  the  divine  knowledge  now  possessed  by  the  soul.  He  dwells, 
however,  rather  on  its  negative  than  upon  its  positive  character. 
He  insists  on  its  absolute  transcendence  of  natural  earthly  know- 
ledge, which  is  “ in  its  eyes  the  lowest  ignorance,”  so  that  “ the 
divinely  wise  and  the  worldly  wise  are  fools  in  the  estimation  of 
each  other ; for  the  latter  cannot  understand  the  wisdom  and 
science  of  God,  nor  the  former  those  of  the  world.”  He  points  out 
how  this  divine  wisdom  completely  detaches  its  possessor  from  the 
knowledge  of  earthly  things  and  even  from  the  understanding  of 
evil.  This  latter  effect  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  evil  qua 
evil  is  sheer  negation  and  limit,  and  the  soul  now  partakes  of  the 
wholly  positive  and  unlimited  self-knowledge  of  God.  In  this 
positive  knowledge  the  nonentity  of  evil,  as  being  but  a negation 
and  defect  of  being,  is  made  known  by  its  disappearance  in  this 
y 


338  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

intuition  from  the  field  of  perception.  So  in  Dame  Julian’s  vision 
of  the  Divine  Immanence  in  creatures  “ sin  was  not  showed,” 
because  it  “ is  no  deed  ” — that  is  to  say,  is  purely  negative  (Reve- 
lations, chap.  xi).  In  the  third  stanza  of  The  Living  Flame  St 
John  describes  at  length  how  the  soul  enjoys  a special  knowledge 
of  those  aspects  of  God  that  are  termed  His  attributes,  and  of  all 
these  as  one  simple  Being.  “ If  we  would  understand  what  are 
these  lamps  to  which  the  soul  here  refers,  and  how  they  burn 
within  her  and  emit  light  and  heat,  we  must  remember  that  God 
in  His  one  simple  Being  is  all  the  virtues  and  grandeurs  of  His 
attributes.  . . . Since  He  is  all  these  things  in  His  simple  Being, 
and  since  He  is  united  with  the  soul,  whenever  He  deems  it  good 
to  grant  the  soul  this  knowledge,  the  soul  sees  distinctly  in  Him 
all  these  virtues  and  grandeurs,  to  wit  omnipotence,  wisdom, 
goodness,  mercy  and  the  like.  Moreover,  since  each  one  of  these 
is  the  very  Being  of  God  in  one  person,  either  the  Father,  the  Son 
or  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  since  each  of  these  attributes  is  thus  God 
Himself,  and  God  is  infinite  light  and  infinite  fire  divine  . . . each 
one  of  these  His  attributes  . . . and  virtues  gives  forth  the  light 
and  heat  of  God  Himself.  Inasmuch  as  the  soul  in  one  single  act 
of  this  union  receives  the  knowledge  of  these  attributes,  God  is  to 
that  soul  many  lamps  together,  each  one  of  which  emits  a distinct 
light  of  wisdom  and  a distinct  heat  ” (of  love).  “ The  soul  pos- 
sesses a distinct  knowledge  of  each,  whereby  it  is  inflamed  with 
love.”  It  is  hard  to  explain  more  clearly  a knowledge  which  to  us 
who  possess  it  not  is  and  must  be  a sealed  book.  I understand  by 
it  that  in  this  act  of  infused  knowledge  the  soul  perceives  that  all 
those  spiritual  ideas  or  type  principles  which  are  in  various  degrees 
and  modes  manifested  in  the  world  of  creatures,  and  becoming,  of 
sensation  and  sense-derived  conceptions,  which  is  the  object  of  our 
natural  experience,  are  present  in  absolute  and  unlimited  fulness 
of  being  in  God,  and  that  each  is  one  with  the  other  in  His  Unity. 
The  entire  value  that  is  the  positive  being  of  creatures  consists  in 
their  participation  in  these  Divine  attributes.  The  truths  dis- 
covered by  science  are  participations  of  God’s  absolute  wisdom, 
the  beauty  of  landscapes,  of  beautiful  faces,  pictures  and  poems, 
a participation  of  His  absolute  Beauty.  Now  the  soul  having 
been  freed  from  the  essential  limits  of  these  created  participations 
apprehends  in  the  mystical  intuition  the  presence  of  these  absolute 
ideas  that  were  mirrored  so  imperfectly  in  creatures.  The  soul 
has  achieved  such  a vision  as  that  spoken  of  by  Plato  in  the 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  339 

Symposium,  wherein  the  soul,  having  ascended  the  ladder  of  things 
beautiful,  rising  continuously  from  more  limited  to  less  limited 
beauties,  suddenly  beholds  Beauty  Absolute.  “ He  who  has 
learned  to  see  the  beautiful  in  due  order  and  succession  when  he 
comes  toward  the  end  will  suddenly  perceive  a nature  of  wondrous 
beauty  ...  a nature  which  in  the  first  place  is  everlasting,  not 
growing  and  decaying,  or  waxing  and  waning  . . . not  fair  in  one 
point  of  view  and  foul  in  another  . . . but  beauty  absolute, 
separate,  simple  and  everlasting,  which,  without  diminution  and 
without  increase  or  any  change,  is  imparted  to  the  ever-growing 
and  perishing  beauties  of  all  other  things  ” ( Symposium , 211, 
trs.  Jowett).  Such  is  the  veiled  vision  of  the  transforming  union. 
Here,  however,  all  the  ideas  are  apprehended  together  as  aspects 
of  tire  One  Absolute  Being  Who  is  them  all.  Mother  Cecilia 
speaks  of  this  same  intuition  in  the  first  stanza  of  The  Transforma- 
tion of  the  Soul.  “ Even  to  the  understanding,”  she  says,  “ there 
are  granted  certain  openings  through  which  are  discovered  to  it 
some  rays  of  the  Divine  and  resplendent  countenance  of  the  Divine 
Persons  and  Substance.  . . . Although  in  this  life  this  Divine 
Lord  cannot  be  seen  as  He  is  in  Himself,  as  the  blessed  behold 
Hun  in  Heaven,  He  discovers  Himself  to  the  soul  in  a most  secret 
Divine  vision,  so  that  those  who  experience  it  are  able  to  affirm 
with  great  certainty  and  truth  that  they  see  God  in  this  Divine 
fashion.  . . . Not  only  do  these  souls  behold  and  gather  an 
infinity  of  goods  and  riches  that  proceed  from  God  Himself  ; they 
go  further  and  enjoy  a Divine  consciousness  and  knowledge  of  His 
Being.  If  you  were  shown  the  riches  of  one  whom  you  held  in 
great  esteem,  when  all  the  force  of  your  love  was  directed  to  that 
person  himself,  the  riches  would  not  satisfy  you,  for  you  must 
needs  enjoy  his  personal  presence.  In  like  manner  all  the  riches 
communicated  to  the  soul  that  are  not  the  touch  and  Divine  con- 
sciousness of  God’s  substance  cannot  wholly  satisfy  the  soul  that 
must  needs  receive  them  in  the  very  essence  and  substance  of  Him 
whom  it  loves.  Great  is  the  difference  between  those  whose  thirst 
is  satisfied  with  a few  tiny  pools,  though  even  these  are  the  gift  of 
God  . . . and  those  whose  thirst  is  unquenchable  save  by  the 
fruition  of  Himself,  in  Whom  they  drink  in  its  source  and  fount  the 
vein  of  delicious  living  water.  In  this  wise  do  certain  souls  enjoy 
and  delight  in  that  unfathomable  sea  which  is  the  boundless  ex- 
panse of  the  glorious  waters  of  the  Being  of  God.  This  is  the 
Divine  Sight  whereon  they  feed  their  gaze,  a sight  that  must  of 


340  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

necessity  be  revealed  to  the  soul  whose  entire  life  is  in  God.  Even 
the  twilight  that  consists  in  a great  satisfaction  divinely  given  is 
insufficient.  Such  a soul  must  finally  behold  and  ever  gaze  upon 
the  life  wherein  it  rejoices.  ...  It  is  a sight  that  wholly  bathes 
the  soul  in  glory.  That  glory  makes  it  beautiful,  that  beauty  makes 
it  pure,  that  purity  makes  it  brilliant,  that  brilliance  clothes 
it  in  Divine  rays  and  splendours.  This  vision  enlightens  the  soul 
in  its  light,  makes  it  true  in  its  truth,  one  entire  love  in  its  love, 
holy  in  its  holiness  and  full  of  grace  in  its  Divine  grace.  . . . This 
vision,  moreover,  fills  the  soul  with  blessings  innumerable.  . . . 
Such  is  this  vision,  whereon  the  eyes  of  the  soul  are  fixed  so  firmly, 
that  in  this  vision  it  beholds  all  things,  and  as  it  regards  them 
in  Him  and  by  Him,  it  sees  them,  as  it  were,  bathed  and  pene- 
trated by  Him  their  lord,  so  that  when  that  soul  regards  them  as 
they  are  in  themselves,  they  appear  like  accidents  without  a 
substance”  ( Transformation , st.  1). 

The  world  of  creatures  apart  from  God  is  now  phantasmal  and 
unreal — a world  of  shadows — for  the  real  being  of  creatures  is  per- 
ceived to  be  in  God — their  participation  of  Him.  In  themselves 
they  seem  “ but  accidents  without  a substance.”  The  sensible 
world,  once  so  solid,  so  inevitable,  so  powerful,  so  attractive  and 
so  claimful  that  it  all  but  hid  from  sight  the  world  of  spirit  and 
God  Himself,  is  now  disclosed  in  its  true  character — in  its  nothing- 
ness, in  its  illusion,  in  its  unreality- — “ such  stuff  as  dreams  are 
made  on.”  1 Over  against  this  phantom  universe  God  stands 
revealed  as  the  One  Reality,  and  the  creatures  are  seen  to  be  real, 
only  so  far  as  they  partake  of  His  Reality.  Thus  is  fulfilled  that 
conversion  from  appearance  to  reality,  from  the  exterior  to  the 
interior,  from  the  sensible  to  the  spiritual,  and  from  creatures  to 
their  uncreated  Source  and  Ground,  which  is  the  substance  of  the 
mystical  way  and  the  entrance  of  the  soul  into  eternal  life. 

Mother  Cecilia  stresses  the  fact  that  it  is  the  substance  of  God 
Himself  that  is  the  object  of  this  intuition — though,  we  must 
always  bear  in  mind,  veiled.  After  the  act  of  union  has  passed, 
she  says,  the  soul  sees  “that  it  has  seen  God  with  no  human 
sight  ...  a most  supernatural  vision  of  God  Himself  in  His 
Divine  Being”  (Union).  It  is  an  intuition  of  God  as  the  sole 
Reality  by  comparison  with  Whom  all  creatures  are  mere  illusion 
and  nothingness,  and  of  that  One  Reality  as  the  unification  of  all 
the  type  ideas  its  aspects,  and  as  the  ground  and  true  substance 

1 This  unreality  is  of  course  comparative  (see  Chapters  I.  and  VI.  ad  fin.). 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  341 

of  all  creatures,  since  God  is  eminently  their  positive  being.  The 
nature  of  this  apprehension  is  unintelligible  to  us,  the  fact  of  it  is 
indubitable  for  those  who  accept  the  testimony  of  the  mystics. 
Elsewhere  Mother  Cecilia  says  that  these  souls  “ understand  every- 
thing with  a certain  immensity  ” (st.  6).  By  this  is  meant  that 
the  soul  sees  one  unlimited  Being  underlying  and  partially  manifest 
in  each  created  particular,  so  that  every  creature  is  now  an 
entrance,  wide  or  narrow,  into  the  Divine  Infinity.  For  the  soul 
now  contemplates  creatures  from  God’s  point  of  view,  in  virtue  of 
its  reception  of  the  Divine  knowledge.  “ Since  the  soul  is  placed 
in  the  consciousness  of  God,  it  is  conscious  of  things  as  God  is 
conscious  of  them”  ( Living  Flame,  st.  1).  It  is  a knowledge  of 
all  things  in  their  Divine  source,  not,  however,  distinctly  under- 
stood as  in  heaven,  but  apprehended  in  an  obscure  but  most  vivid 
and  certain  intuition  as  proceeding  from,  present  in  and  unified  by 
their  Divine  origin  and  ground.  “ The  blessed  soul  that  is  so 
fortunate  as  to  attain  this  wound  knows  all,  tastes  all  and  doth  all 
it  will  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  2).  This  knowledge  of  all  things  in 
God  is  stated  more  fully  and  explicitly  by  St  John  in  the  fourth 
stanza  of  The  Living  Flame,  where  he  envisages  the  Divine  con- 
sciousness infused  into  the  soul  as  a Divine  motion  within  it. 
“ This  awakening,”  he  says,  “ is  a movement  of  the  Word  in  the 
substance  of  the  soul,  a movement  of  such  greatness,  lordship  and 
glory  and  of  a sweetness  so  intimate  that  it  appears  to  the  soul  as 
though  all  the  balsams,  aromatic  spices  and  flowers  throughout 
the  world  were  handled  and  shaken,  being  turned  over  to  give 
forth  their  sweetness,  and  that  all  the  kingdoms  and  lordships  of 
the  world,  and  all  the  powers  and  virtues  of  heaven  were  moved. 
Neither  is  this  all.  All  creatures— that  is,  the  virtues,  substances, 
perfections  and  graces  of  all  things  created — shine  forth  and  make 
the  same  motion,  all  together  and  in  one,  inasmuch  as  all  things, 
as  St  John  saith,  are  life  in  Him,  and  in  Him  they  live  and  are 
and  move,  as  the  Apostle  also  tells  us.  Hence  when  this  mighty 
Emperor  moves  in  the  soul  . . . all  things  appear  to  move  with 
Him,  just  as  in  the  earth’s  motion  all  the  natural  objects  thereon 
move,  as  if  they  had  been  nothing.  . . . Here,  however,  they  not 
only  appear  to  move,  but  they  all  discover  the  beauties  of  their 
being,  power,  loveliness  and  graces,  and  the  root  of  their  duration 
and  life.  The  soul  perceives  how  all  creatures,  whether  above  or 
here  below,  possess  their  life  and  strength  and  duration  in  God. . . . 
And  although  it  is  true  that  the  soul  perceives  that  these  things 


342  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

are  distinct  from  God,  inasmuch  as  their  being  is  created,  and  sees 
them  in  Him  with  their  strength,  root  and  vigour,  this  soul  per- 
ceives so  clearly  that  God  is  in  His  Being  all  these  with  infinite 
eminency  that  it  knows  them  better  in  His  Being  than  in  them- 
selves ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  4).  “ Since  God  is  ever,  as  the  soul 

now  sees  Him,  moving,  ruling  and  bestowing  being,  power,  graces 
and  gifts  in  all  His  creatures,  possessing  them  all  in  Himself,  in 
virtue,  presence  and  substance,  the  soul  sees  what  God  is  in  Him- 
self and  what  He  is  in  His  creatures  in  one  sole  vision.” 

This  knowledge  of  creatures  in  God,  as  grounded  in  His  Being 
and  participators  of  His  Being,  is  termed  by  St  John  their  “ morn- 
ing knowledge,”  in  contrast  to  our  natural  knowledge  of  them  as 
they  are  in  themselves  apart  from  their  Divine  Source  and  Ground, 
a knowledge  that  is  but  “ evening  knowledge.”  1 This  morning 
knowledge  of  creatures  in  God  embraces  both  the  created  universe 
as  a whole  and  individual  persons  and  things,  in  so  far  as  they  are 
possessed  of  positive  being.  From  this  source  proceeded  the  sym- 
pathy between  the  saints  and  dumb  animals,  their  love  and  their 
fellowship  with  plant  life  and  even  with  yet  humbler  forms  of 
being.  For  the  saints  saw  God  in  all  things,  and  all  things  in  God. 
Their  harmony  and  fellowship  with  creatures  in  God  was  the  con- 
comitant, indeed  the  result,  of  their  union  with  God,  the  source 
and  ground  of  all  creatures,  and  of  their  consequent  knowledge  of 
creatures  in  Him. 

This  intuition  or  veiled  knowledge  of  God  as  the  source  and 
ground  of  all  things  created  and  the  unity  of  the  type-ideas,  His 
attributes,  together  with  the  intuition  of  all  creatures  as  contained 
eminently  in  Him,  is  often  accompanied  by  a certain  intellectual 
understanding — more  or  less  continuous — of  the  mystery  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity,  an  intellectual  vision,  as  it  is  termed,  of  that 
mystery.  By  this  vision  is  meant,  I believe,  an  infused  conviction 
that  the  Godhead  is  and  must  of  Its  Nature  be  possessed  by  three 
Persons,  is  therefore  essentially  self-communicating,  a threefold 
subsistence  of  one  infinite  Reality.  This  vision  is  spoken  of  by 
St  Teresa  and  other  mystics  as  a concomitant  of  the  transforming 
union.  It  is,  however,  mentioned  neither  by  St  John  nor  by 
Mother  Cecilia.  It  cannot  therefore  constitute  an  essential  part 
of  this  union.  It  is  external  to  it,  an  additional  grace.  Its  chief 
value  for  the  philosopher  of  mysticism  is  its  witness  to  the  fact 

1 This  is  derived  ultimately  from  St  Augustine’s  commentary  on  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  343 

that  mystical  experiences  are  not  alwaj^s  of  a nature  common  to 
all  creeds,  but  that  there  are  certain  experiences,  not  merely 
exterior  and  sensible  phenomena  that  are  so  largely  subjective  in 
their  conditions,  but  interior,  purely  spiritual  and  attaching  to  the 
very  highest  states  of  union,  which  are  distinctively  Christian  and 
can  only  be  enjoyed  by  a Christian  mystic.1  To  the  mystical 
undenominationalist  the  intellectual  vision  of  the  Trinity  must 
be  sheer  illusion.  It  stands,  however,  on  as  high  a level  of 
validity  as  the  mystical  union,  which  it  so  frequently  accom- 
panies, for  it  is  equally  spiritual,  equally  independent  of  the 
senses  and  equally  self-evident  to  its  recipient.  It  is  therefore 
illogical  to  accept  the  latter  as  objectively  valid  and  to  reject 
the  former. 

This  discussion,  however,  of  the  positive  consciousness  of  the 
soul  in  the  act  of  the  transforming  union,  which  is  the  intuitional 
aspect  of  that  act,  must  not  render  us  oblivious  of  the  indis- 
tinct and  veiled  character  of  this  intuition  of  God.  God  Him- 
self is  beheld  immediately,  but  not  as  He  is  in  Himself.  Even  the 
intuition  of  the  Divine  attributes  is  an  intuition  of  the  type-ideas 
as  existent  in  Him,  not  an  open  sight  of  the  Divine  Nature  as  It  is 
in  Itself.  In  this  life  there  is  ever  a veil  over  the  face  of  God. 
“ God  does  not  show  Himself  with  the  clearness  with  which  He  is 
seen  in  heaven,  but  is  veiled  ” ( Transformation , st.  11).  “ The 

communication  made  under  a veil  in  this  life  . . . although  of 
the  same  Divine  Being  Whom  we  shall  enjoy  hereafter  ...  is 
very  different  from  the  least  degree  of  the  glory  of  eternity,  for 
in  this  life  the  Divine  communication,  however  great,  is  always 
covered  and  under  a veil  ” (st.  12).  Though  the  soul’s  “ intuition 
knowledge  and  vision  is  of  the  very  Substance  of  God.  It  is 
always  veiled  ” (st.  1). 

“ God,”  says  St  John,  “ removes  from  before  the  soul  some  of 
the  many  veils  and  curtains  that  are  outstretched  before  it.  . . . 
He  then  shines  through  and  there  appears  dimly  through  the  veils 
(for  all  the  veils  are  not  removed)  an  outline  of  that  countenance 
so  full  of  graces  ” ( Living  Flame,  st.  4). 

Though  mystical  marriage  is  the  dawn  of  that  midday  where 
God  feeds  His  saints  with  the  beatific  vision  of  Himself,  it  is  still 

1 These  Christian  experiences  are  granted  to  Christians  alone,  because  God 
will  have  dogmatic  truth  made  known  only  through  human  preaching  and  faith 
yielded  to  that  external  authority.  " Faith  cometh  by  hearing.  . . . How  shall 
they  hear  without  a preacher  ? ” 


344  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

“ the  night  of  faith  in  the  church  militant.”  1 Gideon’s  pitchers, 
still  unbroken,  conceal  the  lamps  within.2  There  is  indeed  a 
sense  in  which  even  the  heavenly  midday  is  a night,  the  night  of 
the  Divine  infinity  which  no  created  intellect  can  ever  fathom 
even  in  the  fullest  reception  of  the  Divine  Self-knowledge.  There 
are  always  depths  in  God  to  which  even  the  beatific  vision  cannot 
pierce.  St  John,  therefore,  terms  that  vision  in  the  Canticle  the 
serene  night.  Nevertheless  it  is  not  night  as  on  earth.  It  is  on 
earth  that  the  veil  hangs  to  the  end  before  the  Holy  of  Holies 
and  hides  the  Divine  Presence  within.  After  death  that  veil  is 
no  more. 

Nor  only  is  there  in  the  state  of  mystical  marriage  this  veil  of 
faith.  It  is  true  that  in  the  act  of  this  supreme  union  the  sold,  as 
we  saw,  apprehends  God  as  the  source  and  eminent  possessor  of 
all  created  Being,  and  the  Unity  of  those  spiritual  idea-types  that 
we  call  His  attributes.  This  knowledge,  however,  passes  into  a 
deeper  consciousness,  a consciousness  which  we  may  term  nega- 
tive, a simple  consciousness  of  the  infinite  transcendence  of  the 
Godhead  present  in  the  soul,  as  infinitely  exceeding  the  highest 
knowledge  of  Him  that  the  soul  can  possess.  This  consciousness  of 
the  Divine  infinity,  of  a reality  wholly  incomprehensible,  is  so  funda- 
mental in  the  act  of  this  union  that  the  conscious  aspect  of  that 
act  appears  from  this  standpoint  a knowledge  of  infinite  ignorance, 
a darkness.  This  darkness  arising  from  the  Divine  Transcendence 
which  accompanies  the  highest  intuition  of  the  transforming 
union  has  been  expressed  with  great  clarity,  force  and  beauty  by 
Sister  Gertrude  Mary.  “ I entered,”  she  says,  “ into  contempla- 
tion of  the  Infinite  Being  and  His  greatness.  . . . The  further  my 
interior  gaze  penetrated,  the  deeper  it  plunged  into  unfathomable 
depths.  I still  gazed,  and  God  appeared  ever  greater  to  me. 
These  immeasurable  grandeurs  unfolded  themselves  unceasingly 
to  my  eyes,  and  I always  seemed  only  at  the  starting-point.  I 
could  only  perceive  in  the  darkness  one  tiny  point  of  the  greatness 
...  of  the  Infinite  Being.  I say  in  the  darkness,  for  God  hides 
Himself  as  if  behind  a thick  veil.  I see  Him  and  yet  not  clearly. 
I feel  His  Presence  and  yet  in  no  sensible  manner.  . . . Oh,  what 
beauty  will  burst  upon  our  eyes  when  this  veil  is  removed  ” 
(extracts  from  Diary,  pp.  178-179). 

Similar  is  the  language  of  Blessed  Angela  of  Foligno.  “ There 
was  a time,”  she  says,  “ when  my  soul  was  exalted  to  behold  God 

1 Ascent,  Book  II.,  chap.  iii.  2 Ibid.,  chap.  xi. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  345 

with  so  much  clearness  that  never  before  had  I beheld  Him  so 
distinctly.  . . . Afterwards  did  I see  Him  darkly,  and  this  dark- 
ness was  the  greatest  blessing  that  could  be  imagined,  and  no 
thought  could  conceive  aught  that  would  equal  this.  Here,  like- 
wise, do  I see  all  Good.  . . . The  soul  delighteth  unspeakably 
therein,  yet  it  beholdeth  naught  that  can  be  related  by  the  tongue 
or  imagined  in  the  heart.  It  seeth  nothing,  yet  seeth  all  things, 
because  it  beholdeth  this  Good  darkly— and  the  more  darkly  and 
secretly  the  Good  is  seen  the  more  certain  is  it  and  excellent  above 
all  things.  Wherefore  is  all  other  good  which  can  be  seen  or 
imagined  less  than  this,  because  all  the  rest  is  darkness,  and  even 
when  the  soul  seeth  the  divine  power,  wisdom  and  will  of  God  ” (the 
intuition  of  God  in  and  through  His  attributes  described  in  The 
Living  Flame  of  Love)  “ it  is  all  less  than  this  most  certain  Good. 
Because  this  is  the  whole  and  those  other  things  are  but  part  of  the 
whole.”  1 This  darkness,  which  is  the  supreme  intuition  of  the 
Transcendent  Deity,  is  often  mentioned  by  Mother  Cecilia,  who 
refers  to  it  several  times  in  her  Treatise.  The  Divine  “com- 
munication,” she  tells  us,  “ is  termed  darkness.  He  who  enters 
farthest  into  this  darkness  enters  farthest  into  the  light  of  God, 
the  light  that  shineth  in  the  darkness  of  the  creature’s  limited 
capacity  and  that  darkness  understands  it  not  ” ( Transformation , 
st.  1).  “ The  more  deeply  the  soul  enters  into  this  union  ” (the 

mystical  union  with  God),  “ the  more  is  it  darkened  by  the  greater 
light  that  it  receives  from  its  transformation  into  God.  However 
hard  I might  try,  it  would  be  impossible  to  explain  how  the  soul 
is  now  blinded  by  this  Divine  light  ” ( Transformation , st.  10). 
Elsewhere  Mother  Cecilia  dwells  at  greater  length  on  this  negative 
consciousness  attendant  on  the  act  of  union,  which  act  she  describes 
as  a flight  of  the  centre  into  God.  “ I have  now,”  she  says,  “ to 
speak  of  the  greatest  communication  of  all.  . . . This  com- 
munication is  effected  in  the  immensity  of  the  soul’s  very  centre. 
The  soul  takes  flight  into  the  immensity  of  God,  a flight  so  divine 
into  Him  that  the  senses  and  faculties,  indeed  all  the  lower  part, 
completely  miss  it.  In  solitude  is  the  soul  raised  to  God  in  this 
flight,  knowing  with  certainty  that  it  has  entered  farther  into 
Him,  with  Whom  it  is  now  united.  ...  In  Him  it  abides  wholly 
lost,  and  in  Him  transcends  all  the  limits  of  reason,  and  of  all  that 
is  natural  and  sensible.  The  soul  flies  to  God  in  a Divine  slumber, 
completely  dead  to  all  things.  This  is  a most  Divine  and  in- 
1 Visions  and  Instructions,  chap.  xxvi. 


346  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

expressible  experience.  It  is  the  highest  summit  of  pure  con- 
templation, for  it  wholly  destroys  all  the  operations  of  the  soul 
and  renders  it  not  merely  entranced,  but  dead  to  all  its  natural 
activities  and  operations.”  “ Nevertheless,”  continues  Mother 
Cecilia,  “ when  this  highest  contemplation  has  passed  away, 
wherein  the  soul  is  so  completely  blind,  it  is  left  with  increased 
capacity  and  strength  to  attend  to  any  matter  whatsoever  ” — that 
is,  of  course,  when  the  union  is  not  in  act.  . . . “ However,  during 
the  time  that  this  flight  and  deepest  entry  into  God  endures, 
the  soul  sees  nothing,  but  enjoys  in  darkness  Him  Who  is  present 
with  it,  not  knowing  nor  understanding  how  ” ( Transformation , 
st.  4).  Elsewhere  Mother  Cecilia  says : “ While  this  Divine 

silence,  wrought  in  the  heaven  of  the  spirit,  endures,  the  under- 
standing is  wholly  lost  in  the  excess  of  its  object.  . . . The  soul’s 
greatest  fruition  of  God,  therefore,  is  when  the  understanding 
is  blind,  in  darkness,  and  suspended  in  God,  Who,  since  He 
transcends  all  understanding,  leaves  the  intelligence  blind  and  in 
darkness.  . . . The  mighty  force  effected  by  God  in  the  soul  . . . 
suspends  the  faculties  ” ( Transformation , st.  6).  “ The  under- 

standing ...  is  not  admitted  to  the  substance  of  this  Divine 
work,  which  is  wrought  in  the  essence  of  the  soul.  The  inferior 
parts  of  the  soul,  therefore,  remain  lost,  blinded  and  dazzled  by 
this  infinite  good.  Thus  to  remain  is  the  best  work  which  the 
understanding  does  or  could  do.  Further,  it  cannot  attain,  so 
great  is  the  force  that  overthrows  and  absorbs  it.  Although  it 
understands  divinely  that  which  God  wills  it  to  understand  . . . 
it  does  not  attain  that  which  is  greatest  and  best  of  God’s  self- 
communication, for  this  is  granted  solely  to  the  essence  ( i.e . the 
centre)  of  the  soul.”  By  this  is  meant  that  the  act  of  union  is 
grounded  in  the  Divine  possession  of  the  centre  which  is  beyond 
all  understanding.  “ This  substantial  communication  is  the 
principal  work  of  God  in  the  higher  part  of  the  soul,  to  which  the 
lower  faculty  cannot  attain,  but  must  be  content  with  that  which 
its  capacity  can  reach,  the  perception  that  there  is  being  given  to 
the  essence  of  the  soul  a good  that  is  beyond  understanding. 
Since  the  understanding  sees  that  it  cannot  help,  but  must  rather 
hinder,  it  suffers  itself  to  fail  and  be  lost,  yielding  to  the  forces 
that  attack  it.  Indeed  it  could  not  do  otherwise  at  the  presence  of 
this  infinite  greatness  and  light  that  overpower  it.  In  this  Divine 
darkness  the  understanding  is  illuminated  more  divinely  than  it 
could  have  been  by  any  possible  intuition  or  conception  that  fell 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  347 

short  of  this  infinite  excellency  ” ( Transformation , st.  12).  “ The 

motion  of  the  very  Being  of  God  is  so  strong  and  sweet  that  it 
overpowers  the  entire  soul”  ( Transformation , st.  16).  This 
blinding  of  the  cognition  or  spiritual  consciousness  is  thus  twofold. 
Though  the  understanding  is  filled  by  the  divine  self-knowledge 
communicated  to  it,  it  cannot  fathom  the  central  source  of  the 
Divine  efflux.  Moreover,  its  natural  perception  is  destroyed  by 
that  effluent  flood. 

When  the  transforming  union  is  in  act  all  the  functions  of  the 
soul  are  thus  filled  to  overflowing  with  God,  for  His  Divine  Opera- 
tion that  is  His  Very  Self  is  received  in  them  all.  Hence  they  fail 
in  themselves  and  become  the  channels  of  this  Divine  activity  that 
infinitely  exceeds  their  capacity.  The  functions  of  the  soul  are 
overwhelmed  by  the  communication  of  an  energy  which  is  infinite, 
being  God  Himself.  The  understanding  is  raised  into  the  incom- 
prehensible Godhead,  the  will  is  inflamed  by  Him,  with  His  own 
self-love.  Thus  the  act  of  union  in  its  twofold  aspect  is  an  imbibi- 
tion of  God  by  the  entire  soul.  This  imbibition,  however,  may 
also  be  regarded  as  an  absorption  of  the  soul  into  the  unlimited 
Godhead.  Our  authorities  dwell  on  this  aspect  of  absorption  or 
fusion  of  the  soul  into  the  Divine  Being.  It  is  surely  needless  to 
insist  once  again  that  this  absorption  or  fusion  is  not  that  imagined 
by  pantheism  and  Buddhism,  an  absorption  which  destroys  the 
created  being  of  the  soul  and  the  functions  that  are  essential 
properties  or  aspects  of  that  being.  Such  an  absorption  would 
leave  nothing  to  be  absorbed.  Unless,  indeed,  we  postulated 
growth  in  the  Divine  Being,  a grotesque  conception  incompatible 
with  the  Divine  infinity,  eternity  and  immutability  demanded  by 
religious  experience  and  taught  by  the  revealed  faith  of  the  Church 
— that  is  to  say,  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  Absolute  Reality1 
— such  an  annihilation  would  stultify  the  entire  spiritual  process. 
What  value  or  significance  could  there  be  in  the  creation  of  the 
soul  and  in  its  spiritual  growth  if,  at  the  end,  that  soul  must  pass 
into  sheer  nothingness,  leaving  the  Godhead  unchanged  and  un- 
affected ? Neither  is  it  possible  to  regard  the  absorbed  soul  as 
continuing  to  exist,  but  without  self-consciousness.  Such  an 
existence  would  be  no  better  than  annihilation.  A soul  perpetu- 

1 If  God  thus  grows,  at  what  degree  of  His  Being  did  the  growth  begin  ? Mr 
Wells  seems  to  answer  at  nonentity  from  which  the  garnered  experience  of 
humanity  has  gradually  built  up  its  God.  The  best  criticism  of  such  a conception 
of  deity  is  to  try  to  think  it  out. 


348  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

ally  unconscious  would  be  a spiritual  nonentity,  entirely  without 
worth.  True  absorption  into  God  or  fusion  with  Him  must 
therefore  be  the  conscious  reception  of  God  by  the  entire  soul,  a 
conscious  participation  of  His  Divine  Life,  a conscious  union  with 
His  Godhead,  a consciousness  of  His  self-consciousness.  It  will 
thus  be  a God-consciousness,  in  which  the  soul  is  conscious  also 
of  itself  and  of  other  creatures  ; not  directly,  indeed,  but  as  known 
in  the  Divine  self-knowledge.1  Moreover,  our  study  of  the  trans- 
forming union  in  habit  and  act  has  shown  it  to  consist  in  an 
absorption  into  God  through  the  reception  and  imbibition  of 
the  Godhead  by  the  substance  and  functions  of  a created  spirit, 
conscious  of  this  imbibition.  There  is  therefore  no  danger  of 
pantheistic  misinterpretation  of  the  passages  that  I must  now 
quote,  which  insist  on  the  reality  and  fulness  of  this  inconceivable 
absorption  in  God,  the  absorption  of  a self  that  has  lost  its 
limited  selfhood  by  participation  in  the  unlimited  Godhead. 

“ The  soul,”  says  St  John,  “ is  now  detached  not  only  from 
all  outward  things,  but  even  from  itself.  It  is,  as  it  were,  undone, 
assumed  by  and  dissolved  in  love — that  is,  it  passes  out  of  itself 
into  the  Beloved  ” ( Canticle , st.  26).  “ God  ...  in  the  omni- 

potence of  His  unfathomable  love  absorbs  the  soul  into  Himself 
with  greater  violence  and  efficacy  than  a torrent  of  fire  a single 
drop  of  the  morning  dew  which  resolves  itself  into  air  ” ( Canticle , 
st.  30).  “ The  soul  is  absorbed  into  the  Divine  life  ” ( Living 

Flame , st.  2).  The  absorption  of  the  soul  into  God,  or  fusion  of 
the  soul  and  God,  is  imaged  by  the  union  of  a small  light  with  a 
light  enormously  greater.  “ As  in  the  consummation  of  carnal 
marriage  there  are  two  in  one  flesh,  so  also  when  the  spiritual 
marriage  is  consummated  between  God  and  the  soul  there  are  two 
natures  in  one  spirit  and  love.  ...  So  when  the  light  of  a star  or 
of  a candle  is  joined  and  united  to  that  of  the  sun,  that  which 
gives  light  is  not  the  star  nor  the  candle,  but  the  sun,  which  con- 
tains the  other  lights  diffused  within  itself”  ( Canticle , st.  22). 
“ In  this  state  God  and  the  soul  are  united  as  a window  is  with  the 
the  sun’s  ray,  or  coal  with  the  fire,  or  the  light  of  the  stars  with 
that  of  the  sun  ” ( Canticle , st.  26).  “ We  may  say  that  the  light 

of  God  and  the  light  of  the  soul  are  all  one,  since  the  natural 
light  of  the  soul  is  united  to  the  supernatural  light  of  God,  and 

1 1 speak  here  of  this  absorption  as  it  is  when  finally  complete  in  the  beatific 
vision.  Need  I add  that  self-knowledge  in  God  is  better  and  truer  than  self- 
knowledge  in  self  ? 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  349 

now  the  supernatural  light  alone  is  shining.  It  is  as  when 
the  light  created  by  God  (on  the  first  day  of  creation)  was 
united  with  the  light  of  the  sun,  so  that  now  the  sunlight  alone 
shines,  although  the  former  has  not  ceased  to  exist  ” ( Living 
Flame,  st.  3).  “ God  and  the  soul,”  says  Mother  Cecilia,  “ are 

now  united  as  one  water  with  another,  or  one  light  with  another, 
so  that  they  do  not  admit  of  division.  Or  rather  their  unity  is 
greater  than  that  of  these  examples,  for  God  in  the  most  pure 
subtlety  wherewith  He  unites  Himself  with  the  soul,  bestows 
upon  it  His  own  qualities,  so  that  it  is  made  light  in  the  light, 
water  in  the  water  ” ( Transformation , st.  13). 

“ The  union  is  far  closer  than  that  of  one  fire  with  another  or 
one  water  with  another,  for  they  are  corporeal  things,  and  God  and 
the  soul  spiritual  substances  ” (Union).  Material  objects  can  never 
interpenetrate  so  intimately  as  spirits  interpenetrate.  Another 
reason  why  the  union  exceeds  even  that  of  two  waters  or  lights 
is  that  the  created  being  is  nonentity  by  comparison  with  the  un- 
created Being  into  which  it  is  absorbed.  It  follows  that  in  this 
union  only  one  member  possesses  true  and  full  Being,  the  other 
member  being  simply  the  reception  of  that  fulness  of  Being  by  a 
comparative  nothingness.  This,  indeed,  seems  to  be  Mother  Cecilia’s 
meaning  when  she  says  : “ Since  Our  Most  High  God  is  Who  He 
is,  it  is  not  strange  that  union  with  Him  changes  and  transforms 
the  soul  with  such  force  of  love  into  the  Being  of  the  Beloved,  and 
that  this  transformation  into  so  strong  and  so  Divine  a Being  takes 
it  out  of  itself  and  its  natural  activity  to  supernatural  and  Divine 
activities.  . . . When  united  with  God  the  soul  is  immense,  in 
Him  it  is  life,  in  Him  sanctification  and  perfection.  The  soul 
attains  to  be  God  in  God,  because  it  is  united  with  God  Himself, 
and  in  this  permanent  union  comes  to  possess  certain  qualities 
wherein  it  closely  resembles  Him.  In  this  union  that  which  is 
nothing  is  God,  that  which  is  death  is  life,  that  which  by  sin  is 
corruption  is  sanctification”  (Union).  In  other  words,  the  soul’s 
reception  of  God  dwarfs  into  comparative  non-existence  its  created 
being  that  receives  Hun.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  mystics  confer 
upon  a soul  in  this  union,  as  does  Mother  Cecilia  in  the  passage 
above  quoted,  the  name  of  God.  Because  its  entire  being  and 
activity  is  a reception  of  God,  it  is  God,  deified  by  participation 
of  God.  Language  could  not  express  more  concisely  or  more 
eloquently  the  completeness  of  its  absorption  into  the  Godhead. 

Mother  Cecilia  emphasises  this  deification  in  the  following 


350  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

passage  : — “ This  Divine  force  is  so  powerful  that  it  undoes  and 
consumes  the  soul  as  the  sea  a drop  of  water.  . . . God  as  a most 
strong  and  powerful  lover  takes  such  possession  of  the  soul  that  is 
united  with  Himself  that  it  is  changed  into  Him  by  this  Divine 
transformation.  . . . God  is  a Divine  and  eternal  Being  . . . 
mighty,  strong  and  infinite,  and  He  is  very  life.  If,  then,  this 
eternal  and  Divine  life  reveals  Himself  more  fully  to  the  soul,  and 
the  soul  participates  in  Him  with  greater  force,  it  is  no  wonder 
that  He  Who  is  so  strong  should  undo  the  soul  to  remake  it  more 
like  to  Himself,  to  make  light  that  which  was  dark,  to  purify  that 
which  was  impure  ; until  finally  He  receives  and  changes  it  wholly 
into  Himself.  The  soul,  indeed,  does  not  lose  its  own  nature,  for 
either  party  in  this  union  remains  in  its  own  being.  But  the  union 
is  so  Divine  in  the  subtlety  wherewith  the  one  party  penetrates 
and  saturates  the  other  that  the  creature  is  changed  into  the 
Creator,  although  still  remaining  a creature  and  He  the  Creator. 
By  its  reception  into  God  the  soul  is  deified  and  possesses  the 
properties  and  qualities  of  the  Creator,  Whose  force  is  so  infinite 
that  He  hides  it  until  He  has  strengthened  the  soul  to  its  endurance. 
. . . We  must  not  understand  that  the  soul  loses  its  natural  being 
to  be  made  part  of  the  nature  of  God,  for  this  is  an  impossibility. 
. . . When,  therefore,  the  soul  is  said  to  lose  its  being,  that  being 
is  meant  that  was  previously  in  the  soul  oppressed  by  human 
things  and  attached  thereto,  that  being  which  through  them  was 
made  a being  of  sins.  ...  As  a result  of  this  Divine  transforma- 
tion the  soul  remains  changed  and  converted  into  God  in  this 
union.  . . . Everything  in  the  soul  is  entirely  subject  and  yield- 
ing to  the  immensity  of  God  Who  . . . has  taken  possession  of 
everything  and  by  the  force  of  His  Spirit  spiritualises  the  soul  and 
keeps  it  in  Himself.  . . . Since  the  soul  is  thus  in  God,  it  often 
feels  that  its  interior  substance  is  like  a glass  window  penetrated 
by  the  rays  of  the  sun  ” 1 ( Transformation , st.  16). 

If  possible,  even  bolder  is  her  language  in  another  passage. 
“ It  even  seems,”  she  says,  “ as  though  in  a certain  fashion  His 
Majesty  wills  to  place  the  soul  on  an  equality  with  Himself  and  to 
raise  it  to  Himself  in  order  to  make  it  God  together  with  Himself. 
Indeed  it  may  be  truly  said  that  this  participation  of  God  by  the 
soul  is  now  so  great  that  not  only  is  it  like  God,  but  God  and  the 
Son  of  the  Most  High.  ...  It  is  now  God’s  will  to  raise  the  soul 
after  this  exalted  fashion  to  this  participation  of  Himself  and  to  be 

1 Cf.  St  John. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  351 

the  life  that  is  given  it  for  its  support,  which  life  is  His  very  Being. 
He  wills  the  soul  so  to  abide  in  Himself  that  the  creature  no  longer 
has  any  consciousness  of  itself,  but  resolved  in  itself  into  nothing, 
lives  in  the  life  of  its  God  and  faints  and  dies  in  Him.  All  that 
was  its  own  has  now  been  destroyed.  The  Divine  essence  is  now 
its  own,  for  into  the  Divine  essence  its  own  essence  has  been  trans- 
formed, and  therein  it  abides,  consumed  and  converted  into  Divine 
fire,  in  the  fire  of  God  that  consumed  it,  peaceful  in  the  peace  of 
God,  wise  in  His  wisdom.  . . . The  force  that  has  consumed  such 
souls  in  its  substance  is  so  infinite  and  eternal,  so  active  and 
potent,  that  though  they  handle  everything,  nothing  enters  into 
them,  save  as  accidents  lacking  substance.  ...  So  powerful  is 
the  effect  of  the  perpetual  and  abiding  union  that  the  continuity 
of  the  substantial  touches  ” (the  frequent  acts  of  union,  together 
with  the  habitual  consciousness  of  God  present  and  possessing  the 
centre)  “ makes  the  soul  one  substance  with  the  substance  of  God. 
. . . The  entire  natural  being  of  the  soul  is  lost  or  rather  is 
glorified  into  a Divine  being.  Its  substance  is  undone  and  changed 
into  God,  because  that  substance  is  now  deified  and  transmuted 
into  Him.  It  is  true  that  on  every  soul  is  stamped  the  image  of 
God,  and  He  keeps  all  souls  in  His  essence,  conferring  upon  them 
life  and  being.  The  being  of  the  transformed  soul,  however,  is 
now  undone  and  changed  in  a very  special  manner,  being  changed 
and  transformed  into  the  Essence  of  God”  (Union).  I cannot 
comment  on  these  marvellous  words  ; they  must  speak  for  them- 
selves to  every  reader  as  he  is  capable  of  their  reception.  Only 
let  no  one  cry  blasphemy  that  she  makes  the  soul  thus  to  become 
God.  “ Christ  became  Man,”  said  St  Athanasius,  “ that  we  might 
become  God.”  This  is  not  a solitary  utterance.  Through  the 
fathers  and  schools  from  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  St  Thomas, 
with  especial  emphasis  in  the  Latin  Augustine  and  the  Greek  Cyril, 
is  repeated  this  bold  language  of  the  deification  of  the  Christian 
soul  by  its  grace-union  with  God  and  participation  of  His  Deity.1 
As  recipients  of  the  infinite  Divine  Being,  “ partakers  of  the  Divine 
nature  ” through  sanctifying  grace,  we  are  already  gods  in 
potency.  If  the  language  of  deification  is  no  longer  so  freely 
applied  to  the  ordinary  Christian  in  a state  of  grace  as  it  was  by 
many  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  because  a long  and  bitter  experience  has 
made  us  realise  how  extremely  potential  is  the  deification  of  the 

1 See  Scheeben,  La  Dogmatiqne,  vol.  iii.,  and  Fr.  Terrien,  L a Grace  e!  la  Gloire, 
Book  I.,  chap.  iv. 


852  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

average  Christian.1  Nevertheless,  wherever  sanctifying  grace  is 
present,  that  potency  or  germ  of  deification  exists.  In  this  trans- 
forming union  the  potency  is  passing  into  act,  for  the  barriers  of 
natural  selfhood  have  been  destroyed.  “ The  sold  has  now  no 
door  ” of  limited  volition  or  consciousness  “ shut  against  God’s 
Divine  Being.”  2 “ It  is  the  highest  mystery  and  bliss  of  rational 

creatures  that  although  they  are  so  little,  indeed  nothing,  in  respect 
of  God,  He  raises  them  into  Himself.  . . . The  more  this  nothing 
annihilates  itself  the  more  is  it  enabled  to  extend  its  capacity  in 
the  immensity  of  God,  because  it  is  in  this  nothingness,  unde- 
tained by  any  limited  thing.  . . . When  the  soul  is  strengthened 
by  the  Divine  infinity  it  can  no  longer  be  contained  within  the 
limits  of  its  own  natural  strength  and  capacity  and  of  its  own 
nothingness,  but  abandons  itself  wholly  to  the  greatness  of  its 
God  ” ( Transformation , st.  16).  “ The  soul  journeys  ...  to 

God  in  immensity  without  any  limited  road  or  way  in  her  interior 
essence.  . . . The  soul  is  no  longer  attached  to  any  creature  what- 
soever, for  it  has  now  transcended  all  the  limitations  of  reason,  of 
creatures,  of  all  finite  conceptions  of  God.  God  has  set  its  feet  in 
a large  room,  in  a Divine  heaven,  that  is  higher  than  heaven  itself, 
because  it  is  the  Creator  of  heaven.  Herein  the  soul  extends, 
dilates  and  travels  in  the  freedom  of  infinity,  not  needing  any 
road,  for  in  the  boundless  expanse  it  has  gone  forth  from  all  roads 
that  now  lie  behind  it,  for  its  travels  thereon  are  ended.  A stage 
in  the  journey  has  been  reached  when  the  Divine  immensity  lies 
open  before  the  soul,  and  the  further  it  travels  therein  the  more  it 
realises  its  infinity.”  “ God  shows  Himself  to  the  soul  in  His 
immensity  in  an  immense  and  unbounded  place  that  is  in  Himself 
and  without  any  limited  way,  for  His  way  now  is  in  the  sea  and 
His  path  in  the  mighty  waters  and  His  footsteps  are  not  known  ” 
[Trans.,  sts.  12,  11).  Such  is  the  end  of  the  Divine  philosophy 
of  the  unlimited  that  I have  endeavoured  to  expound  throughout 
this  book,  absorption  in  the  Unlimited  because  all  limits  have  been 
destroyed.  Mother  Cecilia  expresses  this  by  a simile  to  which  she 
recurs  with  especial  fondness,  the  simile  of  a man  immersed  and 
drowned  in  the  ocean.  In  one  passage  she  regards  this  ocean  as 
the  centre  of  the  soul,  capable  of  receiving  the  infinite  life  of  God 
because  created  after  His  image  and  grounded  in  “ His  very  life 

1 Similar  to  this  has  been  the  restriction  in  the  use  of  the  term  “ saint  ” applied 
by  the  Apostolic  and  subapostolic  writers  to  all  Christians  indiscriminately. 

2 Union. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  353 

and  essence  ” ( Transformation , st.  1).  Elsewhere  that  ocean  is 
the  infinite  Godhead.  The  soul  “ is  now  drowned  in  the  deep 
ocean  of  the  Deity,  wherein  it  finds  no  limit  or  measure  or  particular 
path  or  way,  but  one  simple  Goodness  ” (object  and  satisfaction 
of  the  will  that  seeks  and  finds  an  unlimited  good)  “ immense  and 
eternal  ” ( Transformation , st.  12).  “ The  way  of  the  soul  lies 

amidst  . . . the  deep  sea  of  the  Divinity  ” ( Transformation , 
st.  12).  It  is,  however,  towards  the  end  of  The  Treatise  of  the 
Union  that  Mother  Cecilia  elaborates  the  simile.  She  is  explain- 
ing how,  even  when  the  transforming  union  has  been  attained,  the 
soul  can  be  immersed  ever  more  deeply  in  the  Divine  immensity. 
“ When  once  the  soul  has  received  this  continuous  union  ...  its 
task  ...  is  to  join  itself  more  closely  to  Him  to  Whom  it  is 
joined  already,  to  receive  in  greater  power  the  Divine  Substance 
received  already,  to  surrender  itself  to  Him  with  a fuller  self- 
abandonment,  to  penetrate  deeper  into  Him,  to  live  more  intim- 
ately in  His  life.  . . . The  substantial  touches  no  longer  cause 
any  sense  of  novelty,  because  the  soul  always  has  present  to  itself 
the  Substance  of  God.  But  it  understands  without  understanding 
that  it  enters  deeper  into  Him.  That  soul  is  like  a person  drowned 
in  the  sea.  When  he  enters  the  sea  first,  before  he  is  drowned, 
he  is  conscious  of  his  own  natural  life  and  of  the  water  contending 
against  it,  until  little  by  little  he  is  wholly  drowned.”  This  drown- 
ing is  accomplished  when  the  soul  enters  into  the  transforming 
union.  “ Let  us  imagine  that  after  his  drowning  he  were  able  to 
retain  some  interior  and  supernatural  consciousness,  as  is  now  the 
case  with  the  soul,  for  the  more  completely  the  soul  is  dead  the 
intenser  is  its  life,  and  the  more  it  is  drowned  the  more  is  it  satis- 
fied. This  man  would  thus  feel  or  understand  that  after  death  he 
was  dying  more  completely,  and  after  drowning  was  being  drowned 
more  completely,  and  that  the  more  completely  he  was  drowned 
the  deeper  did  he  sink  down  into  the  profound  depths  of  the  sea. 

. . . Suppose  also  that  this  sea  were  so  deep  that  it  had  no 
bottom,  and  that  as  the  drowned  man  sank  down  into  the  depths 
he  discovered  ever  greater  beauties  and  treasures  (for  indeed  in 
our  God  such  treasures  are  contained,  seeing  that  He  alone  can 
attain  to  the  infinite  comprehension  of  His  own  infinite  Being), 
this  would  present  some  faint  likeness  of  that  which  now  passes 
in  the  soul  ” (Union).  I should  like  this  illustration  to  fill  the 
imagination  of  all  who  may  read  my  book.  It  sums  up  the  entire 
doctrine  of  mystical  theology.  To  pass  beyond  all  the  limits  of 
z 


354  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

our  created  life  and  its  activity  and  to  sink  deeper  and  deeper, 
ever  deeper,  into  the  boundless  ocean  of  the  Divine  infinity,  the 
entire  soul  filled  with  that  unlimited  Life  or  Being  that  is  the 
Absolute  and  the  All,  this  is  the  end  for  which  God  has  created 
and  regenerated  the  soul  of  man,  with  its  quenchless  craving  for 
an  unlimited  good  that  is  for  an  unlimited  life.  This  fruition  of 
the  Unlimited  has  begun  for  a few — unhappily  a very  few — in 
mystical  marriage  and  is  consummated  for  all  the  saved  in  the 
beatific  vision  of  heaven.  For  mystical  marriage  is  the  entrance 
into  eternity  and  the  foretaste  of  heaven.  For  those  who  have 
reached  it,  death  is  but  a deeper  plunge  into  the  same  boundless 
ocean  in  which  they  are  immersed  already.  Unless  it  be  for 
expiation  that  death  is  but  a transport  of  love  of  extraordinary 
force  and  sweetness  that  breaks  the  thin  web  of  earthly  life  which 
still  veils  the  open  vision  of  God  (see  Living  Flame,  st.  1).  The 
transforming  union  and  the  beatific  vision  are  one  and  the  same 
possession  and  contemplation  of  the  infinite  Godhead,  differing 
solely  in  manner  and  degree.  This  fruition  of  the  Unlimited  and 
therefore  absolutely  real  Being  of  God,  already  begun  on  earth  in 
spiritual  marriage,  complete  hereafter  in  the  beatific  vision  of 
heaven,  this  and  nothing  less  will  satisfy  our  souls.1  For  this 
fruition  of  the  Unlimited  is  perfect  knowledge,  perfect  love  and 
perfect  happiness.  Every  ambition  of  youth,  every  yearning  of 
age,  every  motion  of  desire,  every  joy  real  or  imagined,  in  all  they 
possessed  of  positive  being,  are  now  found  without  illusion  and  with- 
out limit  in  God.  Every  vision  of  physical  beauty,  every  melody 
of  earthly  music,  sunset  light  after  rain,  scarlet  poppies  ablaze 
in  the  corn-fields,  the  furnace  of  an  August  moon  rising  behind 
dark  fir-trees,  the  still  ecstasy  of  a summer  garden  at  night,  the 
ever-changing  sea,  dawn  enthroned  on  the  hills,  the  perfect  forms 
of  the  Parthenon  frieze,  the  lucent  and  joyful  colours  of  Angelico, 
an  organ  thundering  through  the  lofty  vaults  of  a Gothic  minster, 
violins  thrilling  with  love  and  yearning  with  desire,  the  magic  of 
a plain- chant  Jubilus,  the  music  of  Wagner,  soul-searching  and 
soul-burning,  his  mighty  storms  of  passion,  his  softer  notes  oi 
tender,  mournful  longing,  his  raptures  of  triumphant  possession, 
the  love-lit  eyes  of  some  dear  human  countenance,  the  tones  of 
a voice,  precious  alike  for  the  singer’s  sake  and  the  song,  all  these 

1 This  statement  requires  modification  as  regards  those  souls  who  are  in  a 
state  of  mere  nature — e.g.  the  unbaptized  infants.  Here  I leave  such  out  of 
account. 


THE  TRANSFORMING  UNION  355 

are  possessed  here  in  the  perfect  fulfilment  of  that  Divine  reality 
of  which  they  were  but  shadows  and  sacraments.  They  will 
indeed  be  found  also  hereafter  in  material  beauties  worthy  to  be 
abiding  sacraments  of  the  spirit  of  which  they  will  be  wholly 
translucent.  Even  these,  however,  will  be  of  little  worth  by  com- 
parison with  the  present  spiritual  fulfilment.  Spiritual  beauty — 
the  beauty  of  noble  deeds,  lofty  thoughts,  inspiring  visions  and 
loving  hearts — is  now  drunk  immediately  from  its  unlimited  source. 
It  is  the  same  with  truth.  Vast  hypotheses  of  science,  inexpres- 
sible intuitions  of  an  art,  wherein  truth  and  beauty  are  wed, 
revealed  dogmas  of  faith — all  are  found  in  the  Truth  that  is 
absolute  and  all-sufficing.  Life  is  also  herein,  that  life  which  is  an 
impulse  in  the  veins  when  the  morning  is  fair,  the  air  keen  and  the 
years  few,  that  life  which  is  the  foe  of  dullness,  monotony  and  con- 
vention, that  life  for  which  we  long  and  to  which  we  cling,  even 
when  we  can  least  understand  or  justify  our  longing  and  clinging, 
ours  now  in  inexhaustible  fulness.  No  more  negation,  no  more 
self-denial,  no  more  asceticism.1  These  were  but  the  means,  albeit 
the  sole  means,  by  which  the  limits  of  independent  selfhood  and 
limited  desires  could  be  destroyed.  They  have  no  place  in  the  end 
which  is  wholly  positive  : unlimited  life,  unlimited  knowledge, 
unlimited  love.  The  Resurrection  stage  has  also  begun,  in  part, 
even  here  on  earth.  The  confident  naturalism  of  the  early  Greeks,  * 
and  of  ourselves,  too,  during  a few  favoured  moments  when  we  feel 
that  this  earthly  life  is  good  and  beautiful,  and  nature  the  all- 
sufficient  key-bearer  and  dispenser  of  Reality,  but  destroyed  long 
since  by  bitter  experience,  returns  once  more  fulfilled  and  trans- 
cended by  this  new  life  of  supernature  triumphant  and  complete. 
This  infinitude  of  delights  is,  moreover,  one,  an  absolute  unity 
which  is  perfect  harmony  and  therefore  perfect  peace.  But  this 
peace  is  also  a boundless  energy  of  love  infinitely  intense  and 
passionate  in  its  purity  from  all  the  limits  that  make  earthly  love 
so  scant,  so  unsatisfying,  often  so  gross  and  so  vile.  The  soul  lo\es 
by  participating  in  that  love  Divine  that  made  the  perfectly  self- 
satisfied  God  assume  our  humanity  to  buy  our  love  by  suffering 
and  death.  Each  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  the  necessary 
uncreated  and  intrinsic  receptacle  of  the  unlimited  Godhead  and 
term  of  the  unlimited  Divine  activity.  In  the  transforming  union 

1 This  is,  of  course,  strictly  and  fully  true  only  of  the  perfect  fruition  of  heaven. 
On  earth  there  is  always  (i)  a body  that  weighs  down  and  wars  against  the  soul 
and  (2)  the  suffering  of  expiation. 


356  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  part,  wholly  in  heaven,  the  soul  is,  if  we  may  use  the  expression, 
a contingent,  created  and  extrinsic  receptacle  of  the  Godhead  and 
term  of  His  activity.  But  whereas  the  intrinsic  Divine  receptacle 
and  term  comprehends  and  exhausts  the  Divine  fulness  received, 
the  created  receptacle  and  term  falls  infinitely  short  of  comprehen- 
sion and  exhaustion.  Though  one  with  the  Unlimited,  recipient 
and  partaker  of  the  Unlimited,  its  own  being  is  finite  because 
created.  It  is,  as  it  were,  lost  and  absorbed  in  the  Unlimited  that 
exceeds  it  infinitely.  Therefore  eternity  cannot  exhaust  its 
vision  or  satiate  its  love.  There  can  never  be  the  weariness  of 
satiety  because  there  can  never  be  an  end.  The  ancient  Beauty 
is  ever  as  new  as  its  first  vision.  The  entire  life  and  history  of 
mankind,  alike  individual  and  social,  is  a yearning  and  a striving, 
unconscious  or  conscious,  ill  or  well  directed  towards  the  boundless 
ocean  of  the  Unlimited.  Thither  leads  the  path  of  sanctifying 
grace.  The  mystical  way  has  taken  the  soul  beyond  the  shore 
of  that  ocean  and  down  into  its  depths.  Souls  unspeakably 
blest,  immersed  in  this  Divine  Ocean,  unbounded  activity  is  yours 
that  is  also  undisturbed  peace,  insatiate  desire  that  is  infinite 
satisfaction,  inexhaustible  knowledge  that  retains  for  ever  the 
awestruck  wonder  which  arises  from  the  realisation  of  limitless 
realms  of  being  that  are  and  must  ever  be  unknown.  The 
Unlimited  alone  can  fill  the  human  soul,  and  that  Infinity  may 
be  ours,  for  it  is  God,  and  God  offers  us  Himself. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  XII 


THE  RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN  THE  TRANSFORMING 
UNION  AND  THE  BEATIFIC  VISION 

I have  already  discussed  at  length  and,  as  I hope,  have  sufficiently 
proved  the  substantial  identity  between  the  passive  night  of  spirit 
and  purgatory.  Is  there  also  an  identity  of  substance  between 
the  transforming  union  and  the  beatific  vision  of  heaven  ? It  is 
surely  evident  that  a complete  identity  between  any  mystical 
union  on  earth,  hoAvever  exalted  (apart  from  the  doubtful  possi- 
bility of  an  extraordinary  miracle),  and  the  open  vision  of  heaven  is 
precluded  alike  by  the  conditions  of  man’s  life  of  probation  in  this 
world  and  by  the  teaching  of  Scripture  (“  No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time  ”).  On  the  other  hand,  there  must  be  some  com- 
munity and  therefore  some  identity  between  all  supernatural 
receptions  of  the  Godhead  by  the  soul,  whether  in  this  life  or  in  the 
next.  Our  question  is  therefore  whether  the  identity  is  sufficient 
to  be  justly  termed  a substantial  identity.  I have  not  been  able 
to  find  any  full  discussion  of  this  question.1  An  answer  may, 

1 Antonius  a Spiritu  Sanctu  ( Directorium  Mysticum)  treats  the  question 
incidentally  in  a number  of  scattered  passages.  He  is,  however,  vague  and  even 
self-contradictory.  In  Tract  4,  Disp.  4,  sec.  13,  he  says  that  apart  from  the 
extraordinary  case  of  a transient  admission  to  the  Beatific  Vision  God  is  not  seen 
per  essentiam.  Since,  however,  God  and  His  Essence  are  indistinguishable,  and 
the  soul  in  the  highest  mystical  experience  does  see  God,  it  must  in  some  sense 
see  His  essence.  In  some  passages  Antonius  denies  that  the  experimental  know- 
ledge of  God  in  the  mystical  union  is  an  intuition.  In  other  passages,  however, 
he  speaks  of  the  soul  as  having  a “simple  intuition  of  the  truth,”  and  that 
“mystical  theology  is  truly  termed  intnitio.”  Again,  he  sometimes  says  that 
God  is  seen  in  the  highest  mystical  union  “ by  a species  that  perfectly  represents 
Him”  (Tract  4,  Disp.  4,  sec.  4).  But  elsewhere  I find  "perhaps  it  can  be  better 
said  that  this  light  . . . communicated  to  the  understanding  is  a certain  par- 
ticipation of  the  light  of  glory  and  so  disposes  the  understanding  that  God  is 
immediately  united  with  it”  (in  other  passages  he  denies  that  it  is  the  light 
of  glory  or  an  immediate  perception  of  God)  “ after  the  fashion  [in  ratione ] of  an 
intelligible  species”  (and  therefore  He  is  not  seen  only  by  a created  species,  as 
affirmed  above),  "so  that  God  is  indeed  seen  in  Himself,  though  not  clearly  and 
perfectly  as  in  glory  ” (Tract  4,  Disp.  1,  sec.  8).  It  may  be  said  that  this  latter 
passage  refers  to  a lower  union  than  that  referred  to  in  the  former  quotation  which 
is  concerned  with  mystical  marriage — but  surely  if  the  intuition  in  its  lower  form 

357 


358  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

however,  be  found  by  a consideration  of  the  nature  of  mystical 
experience.  Mystical  experience  comprises,  as  we  have  seen, 
two  fundamental  constituents,  a conational  or  will-union  and  a 
cognitional  union,  or  intuition.  As  regards  the  former  there  is 
surely  no  substantial  difference  between  the  transforming  union 
and  the  beatific  love  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  Both  are  the  Self- 
love  of  God  received  in  the  will,  and  the  latter  differs  from  the 
former  only  in  degree.  An  identity  of  principle  exists  also  in  the 
cognitional  element  or  aspect  of  union  ; for  the  intuition  of  the 
transforming  union  and  the  beatific  vision  are  alike  receptions  of 
the  Divine  Self-knowledge.  There  is,  however,  a most  important 
divergence,  a divergence  not  of  degree  only  but  of  kind.  The 
intuition  of  the  transforming  union,  although  an  immediate  per- 
ception of  the  Godhead,  is  not  a clear  vision,  as  will  be  the  beatific 
vision.  God  is  immediately  apprehended  by  a supernatural  con- 
tact and  grasp  of  His  Godhead,  but  there  is  no  comprehension  of 
His  Nature.  On  the  contrary,  the  highest  intuition  is  the  most 
negative,  the  fullest  perception  of  an  incomprehensible  infinitude. 
Tt  is  true  that  even  in  the  beatific  vision  the  unlimited  Godhead 
will  never  be  fully  comprehended.  But  there  will  be  such  a 
measure  of  comprehension  as  will  amount  to  a clear,  unveiled 
vision  of  the  Divine  Nature.  On  earth,  on  the  contrary,  the 
supreme  intuition  is  a dark  though  intensely  certain  and  vivid 
apprehension  of  the  Divine  Presence.1  If,  therefore,  we  mean  by 
substantial  identity  an  identity  of  principle,  there  is  a substantial 
identity  between  the  transforming  union  and  the  beatific  vision.2 
If,  however,  we  mean  an  identity  which  admits  only  of  differences 
that  leave  unaffected  the  essence  of  the  experiences  under  com- 
parison, this  identity,  though  fully  present  in  the  case  of  the  night 
of  spirit  and  purgatory,  is  not  thus  present  in  the  case  of  the  trans- 

is  immediate  without  created  species,  and  by  a participation  of  the  lumen  glorice, 
a fortiori  is  this  true  of  a higher  form.  At  the  opening  of  his  book  Antonius 
gives  both  views  without  deciding  between  them.  As  will  be  seen  from  the  text, 
my  own  opinion  is  that  expressed  by  Antonius  in  the  last  quotation.  It  is  con- 
firmed indirectly  by  Antonius  when  he  calls  faith  the  participation  of  the  light 
of  glory  (Tract  3,  Disp.  1,  sec.  5),  as  the  light  of  glory  is  itself  a participation  of 
the  Divine  Understanding  (Tract  3,  Disp.  4,  sec.  5). 

1 It  is  impossible  in  treating  of  a matter  so  far  beyond  the  province  of  normal 
experience  to  employ  words  with  any  pretence  of  scientific  accuracy  and  dis- 
tinction. Language  can  only  indicate. 

2 There  is  indeed  an  identity  of  principle  between  every  operation  of  sanctifying 
grace  and  the  union  enjoyed  in  heaven.  The  least  operation  of  sanctifying  grace 
possesses  in  common  with  the  beatific  vision  the  character  of  a supernatural 
reception  of  the  Divine  Being  and  Operation. 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  XII  359 

forming  anion  and  the  beatific  vision.  For  in  the  cognitive 
element  there  is  a difference  between  the  two  unions  which  suffices 
to  establish  a difference  of  kind,  the  difference,  namely,  between 
veiled  intuition  and  unveiled  vision,  between  apprehension  of 
God’s  Presence  and  comprehension  real,  though  partial,  of  His 
Nature.  It  remains,  however,  true  that  there  is  sufficient  identity 
between  mystical  marriage  and  the  beatific  vision  to  justify  us  in 
regarding  the  former  as  the  beginning,  foretaste  or  dawn  of  the 
latter. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


ON  THE  MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Every  light  that  comes  from  Holy  Scripture  comes  and  came  from 
this  supernatural  light.  Ignorant  and  proud  men  of  science  were 
blind,  notwithstanding  this  light,  because  their  pride  and  the  cloud 
of  self-love  had  covered  up  and  put  out  the  light.  Wherefore  they 
understood,  the  Holy  Scripture  rather  literally  than  with  under- 
standing and  taste  only  the  letter  of  it  ..  . they  get  not  to  the  marrow 
of  it,  because  they  have  deprived  themselves  of  the  light,  with  which 
is  found  and  expounded  the  Script  ure  ; and  they  are  annoyed  and 
murmur,  because  they  find  much  in  it  that  appears  to  them  gross  and 
idiotic.  And,  nevertheless,  they  appear  to  be  much  illuminated  in 
their  knowledge  of  Scripture,  as  if  they  had  studied  it  for  long  ; and 
this  is  not  remarkable,  because  they  have,  of  course,  the  natural  light 
from  whence  proceeds  science.  But  because  they  have  lost  the  super- 
natural light  infused  by  grace,  they  neither  see  nor  know  My  Goodness, 
nor  the  grace  of  My  Servants. 

St  Catherine  of  Sienna, 

Dialogue,  trs.  Algar  Thorold.  Abridged 
Edition,  pp.  184,  185. 

God’s  revelation  to  man  does  not  consist  of  a number  of 
isolated  facts  about  Himself,  but  is  a revelation  of  the  means 
whereby  fallen  man  may  be  reunited  with  Himself,  the  revelation 
of  the  economy  of  grace.  This  economy  centres  in  God-Incarnate 
Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  and  in  His  mystical  body,  the  Catholic 
Church  wherein  His  Divine  Work  of  restoration  is  continued  and 
applied.  The  Judseo-Christian  revelation  is  wholly  and  solely 
concerned  with  this  dispensation  of  grace  uniting  man  to  God. 
If  it  also  teaches  us  a doctrine  concerning  God  in  Himself,  the 
mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  this  is  because  that  doctrine  is 
implied  in  the  economy  of  redemption  wherein  the  Second  Person 
is  Incarnate  and  the  Third  Person  1 indwells  the  Church  and  the 
individual  soul  for  their  sanctification.  The  Bible,  however,  was 

1 By  appropriation  say  the  majority  of  theologians. 


360 


MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  361 

inspired  and  given  to  the  Church  as  a 1 source  and  instrument 
of  this  revelation.  Hence  that  alone  which  concerns  the  union  of 
man  with  God  by  grace  and  its  economy  is  the  subject  matter  of 
Scripture.  When,  however,  we  read  the  Bible  we  find  a very  great 
deal  which  is  apparently  external  or  unessential  to  this  economy  of 
grace.  Throughout  the  Hebrew  portion  of  the  Book  of  Esther, 
for  instance,  there  is  no  mention  whatsoever  of  God.  What  is 
the  bearing  on  our  salvation  of  the  temporal  deliverances  of  the 
Jewish  people  ? Do  the  life  and  acts  of  Jewish  heroes,  such  as 
Samson,  Gideon,  Jephthah,  or  even  of  Moses,  of  Abraham  or  of 
Jacob,  make  any  difference  to  the  Catholic  to-day  ? What  con- 
cern have  we  with  the  ceremonial  prescriptions  of  the  Levitical  law 
long  since  abolished  ? If,  indeed,  nearly  all  the  Old  Testament 
were  suddenly  lost  to  us,  Catholics  would  still  possess  the  entire 
Christian  revelation  2 in  the  New  Testament  and  tradition.  It  is, 
therefore,  evident  that  the  surface  meaning  of  much  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  is  temporary,  local  and  carnal,  cannot  be  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  Holy  Ghost . That  we  must  seek  in  an  inner 
sense,  in  a mystical  or  allegorical  interpretation.  The  existence 
of  this  sense  is  amply  vouched  for  by  the  authority  of  Scripture 
itself.  The  Gospel  interprets  typically  the  story  of  the  brazen 
serpent  and  of  Jonah  in  the  whale’s  belly.  St  Paul  plainly  tells  us 
in  Galatians  that  the  story  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  was  an  allegory — 
that  is  to  say,  that  its  primary  meaning  and  intent  is  allegorical 
(Gal.  iv).  In  1 Corinthians  he  presents  an  allegorical  interpre- 
tation of  certain  incidents  of  the  Exodus.  The  rock,  he  says, 
whereof  the  Israelites  drank  in  the  wilderness  was  Christ.  A 
large  element  of  type  or  allegory  is  contained  in  the  use  made  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  of  the  strange  figure  of  Melchisedee. 
When  we  turn  to  the  uninspired  Fathers  by  whose  unanimous 
consent  the  Catholic  must  interpret  Scripture,  we  find  that  this 
allegorical  interpretation  is  in  the  highest  favour  with  them.  It 
is  especially  marked  in  the  Alexandrine  school,  and  also,  lest  any 
suspect  the  method,  for  the  theological  errors  of  Origen,  in  that 
great  father  whose  teaching  has  moulded  Latin  theology  ever 
since,  St  Augustine.  The  only  school  which  looked  with  more  or 
less  disfavour  on  the  allegorical  interpretation  was  the  school  of 
Antioch,  which  accordingly  soon  lapsed  into  the  rationalising 
heresy  of  Nestorianism.  Indeed  the  only  member  of  this  school 

1Not,  however,  as  Protestants  maintain,  the  only  source  and  instrument. 

2 As  interpreted  and  developed  by  the  infallible  definitions  of  the  Church. 


362  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

who  entirely  rejected  the  allegorical  interpretation,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  was  one  of  the  leading  supporters  of  this  heresy.  He 
represents  the  culmination  of  an  anti-allegorical  tendency  visible 
even  in  St  John  Chrysostom.1  The  mediaeval  writers  are  satur- 
ated with  this  mystical  interpretation.  There  is  no  need  to  give 
instances.  Every  mediaeval  theologian,  dogmatic  or  mystical,  is 
an  instance.  If  in  our  days  this  mystical  interpretation  is  less  in 
favour,  it  is  because,  by  an  easily  intelligible  reaction  from  Pro- 
testant bibliolatry,  the  Scriptures  themselves  are  less  studied 
than  they  were  of  old.  The  argument  from  authority  is  amply 
supported  by  the  argument  from  reason.  This  argument  is 
derived  from  that  mystical  philosophy  which  I have  endeavoured 
to  explain  in  my  previous  chapters.  The  principles  on  which  the 
validity  of  the  mystical  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  founded  may, 
however,  be  resumed  briefly  here.2  The  human  understanding  is 
in  this  life  conditioned  by  the  information  of  the  bodily  senses. 
The  human  intelligence  cannot  apprehend  God  as  He  is.  The 
highest  knowledge  of  God  in  this  life  is  that  which  is  termed 
negative,  the  apprehension,  that  is  to  say,  of  God  as  wholly  trans- 
cendent of  all  the  concepts  and  categories  of  our  understanding. 
It  is  not  even  true  that  He  exists  in  the  same  sense  that  creatures 
possess  existence.  We  know  that  God  is,  not  what  He  is.  We  do, 
however,  know  that  all  that  is  in  the  creature  is  in  God  eminently 
after  an  infinitely  higher  fashion,  so  that  this  infinite  difference  is 
not  thereby  destroyed.  God,  therefore,  has  revealed  and  com- 
municated Himself  to  us  by  means  of  creatures,  who  cannot, 
indeed,  adequately  represent  Him,  but  who  reveal  as  much  of  our 
relationship  to  Him,  actual  and  possible,  as  can  be  made  known, 
who  serve  as  channels  of  His  grace  and  who  point  beyond  them- 
selves to  Him.  Nor  are  these  creatures  pure  spirits,  because  pure 
spirits  are  too  distant  in  nature  from  man,  who  is  composite  of  soul 
and  body,  to  be  knowable  by  him  directly.3  It  is  through  the 
human  and  the  material  that  God  reveals  Himself  to  men  and 
unites  Himself  with  men.  The  economy  of  grace  is  essentially 
sacramental.  In  this  sacramental  economy,  however,  there  are 
various  levels.  There  is  the  lowest  level  in  which  the  material 


1 See  Newman,  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine.  For  this  more  detailed 
information  I am  indebted  to  Fr.  Joseph  Rickaby,  S.J. 

2 For  a fuller  discussion  see  Chapter  IV. 

3 Except  in  an  extraordinary  supernatural  way,  and  then  only  with  an  obscure 
and  veiled  knowledge. 


MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  363 

object  is  solely  a type  or  symbol  of  the  spiritual  reality.  Such 
were  the  Jewish  sacraments.  Such  are  the  non- sacramental  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  to-day.  Then  we  have  the  level  in 
which  the  material  symbol  is  the  channel  of  a special  grace  given 
through  it — such  are  the  Christian  sacraments  which  effect  what 
they  signify.  Above  that  is  the  level  at  which  the  material  sign 
is  in  a particularly  intimate  relation  to  God.  Such  is  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar  wherein  the  species  1 of  bread  and  wine 
veil  the  Real  Presence  of  God  Incarnate.  Above  all  is  the  Incar- 
nation itself  at  once  the  basis  and  the  crown  of  the  entire  sacra- 
mental economy.  In  the  Incarnation  the  infinitely  transcendent 
and  therefore  unknowable  God  made  a particular  created  Soul 
and  Body  one  Person  with  Himself — so  that  Jesus  Christ  is  both 
God  and  Man,  the  infinite  Creator,  and  a created  Nature,  spiritual 
and  corporeal,  though  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatic  union  no  creature. 
It  is  clear  that  at  these  various  levels  the  relation  between  the  out- 
ward appearance  and  the  inward  reality  is  infinitely  diverse.  That 
which  is  merely  symbolic  must  be  transcended  and  in  a sense  set 
aside  in  order  to  reach  the  spiritual  reality.  The  Humanity  that 
is  one  Person  with  God  can  never  be  transcended.  Mother  Cecilia 
tells  us  in  her  Treatise  on  the  Transformation  of  the  Sold  in  God  that 
the  sacred  Humanity  and  the  mysteries  of  Our  Lord’s  earthly  life 
should  be  understood  in  a progressively  more  spiritual  fashion — 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  contemplative  must  realise  ever  more  fully 
the  infinite  Deity  of  Our  Lord  underlying  His  human  life  and 
actions.  This  Sacred  Humanity,  this  Life  and  these  Actions  can- 
not, however,  be  set  aside  and  forgotten,  because  they  are  essenti- 
ally and  eternally  by  personal  union  the  life  and  actions  of  God 
Himself.  Therefore  the  primary  meaning  of  the  Gospel  Narra- 
tive is  the  plain  historical  meaning.  Though  there  is  also  an 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  episodes  of  Our  Lord’s  life,  this  is 
secondary  in  value.  Any  neglect  or  depreciation  of  the  literal 
sense  of  the  Gospel  in  the  interests  of  an  allegorical  meaning  hidden 
beneath  it  would  be  profoundly  un-Catholic.  The  same  holds 
good  of  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament  (apart  from  the 
Apocalypse,  which  is  essentially  a book  of  types  and  images).  The 
Epistles  teach  the  dispensation  of  grace,  its  channels,  the  sacra- 
ments, its  social  organisation,  the  Church,  its  law,  charity.  These 
are,  indeed,  types  and  sacraments  of  heavenly  things,  but  are  also 

1 The  species 'are  not,  of  course,  material  in  the  sense  of  being  material  sub- 
stances, but  as  being  the  accidents  of  material  substances. 


364  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

in  themselves  the  most  solid  and  profound  realities  of  our  religious 
life  on  earth.  Here,  therefore,  the  allegorical  sense  is  wholly  sub- 
ordinate. The  Old  Covenant,  on  the  other  hand,  is  essentially 
a sacramentum,  of  which  the  New  Covenant  is  the  res.  “ The 
law,”  it  is  written  in  Hebrews,  “ having  a shadow  of  the  good 
things  to  come,  not  the  very  substance  of  the  things.”  But  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  written  account  of  the  dispensation  of  the 
Old  Covenant.  Therefore  it  also  is  essentially  a shadow  of 
good  things  to  come — namely,  Christ,  His  grace  and  His  Church. 
“ The  whole  kingdom  of  the  Hebrew  nation,”  wrote  St  Augustine, 
“ was  one  great  prophet,  because  the  prophet  of  one  Great  One. 
Wherefore  in  those  among  them,  who  were  taught  within  by  the 
Wisdom  of  God,  we  must,  not  in  what  they  said  only,  but  also  in 
what  they  did,  search  for  prophecy  of  the  Christ  Who  was  to  come, 
and  His  Church ; but  in  the  rest  of  that  nation,  collectively  in 
those  things  which  were  done  in  them  or  to  them  by  God.”  . . . 
“ God  so  accounted  of  these  men  [the  saints  of  the  Jewish  law],  and 
at  that  time  made  them  such  heralds  of  His  Son,  that  not  only  in 
what  they  said,  but  in  what  they  did,  or  what  happened  to  them, 
Christ  is  sought,  Christ  is  found  ” (quotations  from  St  Aug. 
Opera  by  Dr  Pusey  in  note  to  St  Aug.  Confessions,  iii.  14).  The 
very  strangeness  of  many  of  the  stories  told  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  inadequate  ethical  level  displayed  in  many  incidents  recorded, 
are  signs  to  point  us  to  the  hidden  meaning.  Are  we,  for  instance, 
scandalised  by  Jacob’s  deception  of  his  father  ? “Si  diligenter 
et  fideliter  attendatur,”  comments  St  Austin,  “ non  est  mendacium, 
sed  mysterium  ” (“  If  it  be  considered  diligently  and  faithfully, 
it  is  no  lie,  but  a mystery  ”).  No  one  had  been  more  offended  by 
the  superficial  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testament  than  St  Augustine 
himself,  until  St  Ambrose’s  preaching  at  Milan  taught  him  to  look 
below  the  surface  of  the  letter  to  find  the  interior  spirit.  It  is  un- 
deniable that  the  literal  meaning  and  truth  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  to-day  clouded  by  the  difficulties  raised  even  by  a moderate 
historical  criticism.  To  what  degree  the  Old  Testament  is 
historical  truth  of  the  letter  can  only  be  decided,  if  at  all,  by  the 
consensus  of  competent  scholars.  Without  anxiety  we  may 
abandon  to  them  a question  devoid  of  religious  significance. 
The  mystical  interpretation  is  the  primary  sense  intended  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  If  we  receive  and  study  that  sense  according  to  the 
teaching  and  practice  of  the  great  Catholic  theologians  of  the 
past,  we  can  leave  the  minor  matter  of  the  letter  to  the  solution 


MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  865 

of  future  scholarship.  Whatever  be  the  final  verdict,  if  a final 
verdict  be  attainable,  on  the  literal  sense  of  the  Old  Testament 
writers,  the  sense  of  the  Divine  Author,  the  mystical  or  typical 
sense,  remains  unaffected.  And  it  is  this  sense  which  possesses 
religious  value  for  us.  It  is  certain  from  authority  and  reason 
alike,  that  every  event,  whether  or  no  it  be  historical,  is  certainly 
an  allegory,  that  the  Old  Testament  history  is  a series  of  in- 
exhaustibly significant  types  of  Christ  and  His  mysteries.  Christ 
and  His  mysteries  are  thus  the  substance  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Never  has  this  principle  been  stated  more  clearly  than  it  is  by 
St  John  of  the  Cross  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  the  second 
book  of  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  He  is  speaking  primarily 
of  the  prophecies,  especially  of  the  prophetic  visions,  but  his 
words  are  applicable  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  “ It 
is  clear,”  he  says,  “that  the  prophecies  do  not  always  mean 
what  we  understand  by  them,  and  that  the  issues  do  not 
correspond  with  our  expectation.  The  reason  is  that  God  is 
infinite  and  most  profound,1  and  therefore  His  prophecies, 
locutions  and  revelations  involve  other  conceptions,  other 
meanings,  widely  different  from  those  according  to  which  we 
measure  our  own  perceptions  ; and  they  are  the  more  true  and 
the  more  certain  the  less  they  seem  so  to  our  understanding.” 
St  John  proceeds  to  give  examples  of  prophecies  never  fulfilled  in 
their  literal  meaning.  He  then  continues  : “ This  is  one  of  the 
many  ways  in  which  souls  deceive  themselves  in  the  matter  of 
revelations  and  Divine  locutions.  They  understand  them  in  the 
letter  and  according  to  the  husk.  . . . The  chief  purpose  of  God 
in  sending  visions  is  to  express  and  communicate  the  spirit  which 
is  hidden  within  them  and  which  is  very  hard  to  be  understood. 
This  is  much  more  abundant  than  the  letter,  more  extraordinary, 
and  surpasses  the  limits  thereof.  . . . The  letter  killeth,”  saith 
the  Apostle,  “ but  the  spirit  quickeneth.  We  must  therefore 
reject  the  letter  and  abide  in  the  obscurity  of  faith,  which  is  the 
spirit,  incomprehensible  by  sense.  . . . The  Jewish  nation  under- 
stood not  the  prophecies,  for  it  followed  after  the  milk  of  the  rind 
and  the  breasts  of  sense.  For  God  spoke  to  them  the  doctrine  of 
His  own  mouth  and  not  of  theirs,  and  that  in  another  tongue  than 
theirs.  ...  It  was  not  possible  for  these  not  to  be  deceived 
because  they  relied  on  the  literal,  grammatical  sense.”  St  John 
then  refers  to  the  prophecies  which  seemed  to  foretell  a temporal 
1 Trs.  David  Lewis  slightly  altered. 


366  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

rule  of  the  Messias,  and  after  pointing  out  that  their  literal  mean- 
ing was  never  fulfilled,  he  continues  : “ The  Jews,  blinded  by  the 
letter  of  the  prophecy,  and  not  understanding  the  true  spiritual  mean- 
ing it  involved,  put  Our  Lord  God  to  death.”  Finally  St  John 
points  out  that  the  spiritual  fulfilment  absorbs  the  literal,  as  the 
greater  the  less,  containing  it,  so  to  speak,  eminently,  even  as  God 
contains  created  worth  eminently  in  Himself.  Since  this  is  so,  we 
should  not  be  disturbed  by  any  difficulties  raised  in  regard  to  the 
literal  sense  of  the  Old  Testament,  which,  however  true,  is  at  best 
a mere  husk  and  rind,  a killing  letter,  but  should  cleave  to  the 
inexhaustible  spiritual  reality  veiled  and  figured  by  the  letter 
which  is  God  Himself,  and  His  dispensation  of  grace  to  man,  in 
Christ  and  in  His  body  the  Church.  As  the  Jewish  ceremonies 
are  not  only  dead,  but  deadly,  to  us  who  have  reached  their 
substance,  so  also  the  1 iteral  sense  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  regarded 
as  the  sole  or  even  as  the  primary  sense,  is  deadly,  taking  away  the 
true  sense  and  profit  of  Scripture  to  our  souls.  That  such  was  the 
constant  instruction  of  St  Ambrose  to  his  flock  we  learn  from  St 
Augustine’s  Confessions,  where  he  says:  “With  joy  I heard 

Ambrose  in  his  sermons  to  the  people  oftentimes  most  diligently 
recommend  this  text  for  a rule,  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit 
giveth  life  ; whilst  he  drew  aside  the  mystic  veil,  laying  open 
spiritually  what,  according  to  the  letter,  seemed  to  teach  some- 
thing unsound  ” ( Confessions , vi.  6,  trs.  by  Pusey). 

But,  it  may  be  objected,  this  mystical  interpretation  is  purely 
arbitrary,  a figment  of  the  interpreter’s  own  brain  foisted  into 
Scripture.  Moreover,  the  allegorical  interpretation  is  infinitely 
diverse,  and  the  interpretation  of  one  commentator  is  at  variance 
with  the  interpretation  of  another.  No  doubt,  like  all  true 
principles,  allegorical  interpretation  has  often  been  misapplied  or 
pushed  too  far,  so  as  to  become  mere  phantasy.  We  must,  how- 
ever, recollect  that  the  spiritual  sense  is  not  finite  like  the  literal, 
but  extends  to  the  infinity  of  God  Himself  and  contains  the  in- 
exhaustible significance  of  His  mysteries.  Therefore  the  mystical 
significance  of  one  prophecy  or  type  comprises  a rich  variety  of 
applications  and  senses,  none  of  which,  nor  indeed  all  together, 
can  exhaust  that  significance.  In  a degree  this  is  true  even  of 
profane  art,  which  in  proportion  to  its  greatness  is  sacramental 
of  spiritual  realities.  A great  picture  or  poem  has  a different 
message  to  different  spectators  or  readers  and  suggests  meanings 
far  beyond  the  conscious  intention  of  the  painter  or  poet.  Yet 


MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  367 

these  are  contained  implicitly  in  the  work  of  art — not  arbitrarily 
foisted  into  it.  It  is  the  more  superficial  and  more  material  art 
whose  message  is  confined  to  the  limited  and  external  understanding 
of  its  author.1  If,  then,  the  mystical  sense  of  Scripture  were  tied 
down  *to  one  distinct  concept,  it  would  be  but  an  outer  husk  or 
letter.  Indeed  the  difference  between  the  incidents  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  is  but  this,  that  in  the  latter  case  its  depth  of 
spiritual  meaning,  its  true  significance,  belongs  to  the  incident 
itself,  in  the  former  to  the  reality  of  grace  signified  and  foretold 
by  the  incident.  For  example,  the  feeding  of  the  Israelites  with 
manna  is  not  in  itself  of  inexhaustible  significance,  but  only  in  its 
reference  to  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  whereas  the  institution  of 
that  Sacrament  by  Our  Lord  is  itself  a fact  whose  meaning  is 
inexhaustible. 

Nevertheless  there  is  an  underlying  unity  in  all  right  mystical 
interpretation.  However  the  detailed  application  may  vary,  the 
spiritual  sense  of  Scripture  is  harmonious  and  unified.  Wherever 
we  take  up  the  Bible  the  underlying  teaching  is  the  same.  The 
more  the  critics  point  out  divergencies  of  outlook,  of  ethical  depth 
and  the  like  in  the  letter,  the  more  strongly  does  this  inner  unity 
come  into  view.  Suppose  it  to  be  shown — I do  not  for  a moment 
say  that  this  has  been  proved — that  the  sacred  writers  wrere  not 
conscious  of  this  fundamental  unity,  that  vrould  only  serve  to 
prove  the  action  of  one  Inspiring  Spirit,  the  true  Author  of  all. 
Moreover,  no  book  of  Scripture,  above  all,  no  book  of  the  Old 
Testament,  must  be  taken  apart  from  the  entire  canon.  The 
meaning  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  that  book  is  determined  by  its  place 
and  function  in  the  full  cycle  of  the  completed  canon  eternally 
present  in  the  mind  of  the  Divine  Author  of  Scripture.  Taken  by 
itself,  the  teaching  of  a particular  book  must  often  be  inadequate, 
that  half  truth  which,  if  left  unsupplemented,  would  amount  to  an 
error,  though  true  as  far  as  it  goes.  We  must  therefore  interpret 
the  incomplete  and  more  superficial  teaching  of  an  earlier  book 
by  the  deeper,  fuller  and  more  complete  doctrine  of  a later.  This 
also  is  mystical  interpretation.  The  sole  adequate  way  in  which 
this  unity  of  principle  could  be  shown  would  be  the  detailed  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  passages.  This  I must  leave  to  the  further 
study  of  any  reader  who  cares  to  undertake  it.  The  unity  to  be 
sought  and  found  throughout  the  Bible  is  the  revelation  of  the 

1 Is  there  any  need  for  me  to  say  that  all  the  meaning  of  Scripture  is  eternally 
present  to  the  true  author  of  Scripture,  God  Himself  ? 


368  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

economy  and  operation  of  grace.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  work- 
ing of  grace  restoring  fallen  man  and  reuniting  him  to  God, 
through  the  Incarnation,  through  the  extension  of  the  Incarnation, 
the  Church  and  her  sacramental  system,  and  through  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Incarnation  and  its  fruits,  by  means  of  Church  and 
sacraments,  to  the  individual  soul.  So  long  as  the  letter  is  inter- 
pretated  in  reference  to  this  economy  of  grace,  the  interpretation 
is  valid  and  fruitful,  and  the  most  superficially  diverse  passages 
and  texts  will  yield  one  harmonious  substance  of  spiritual  truth. 
From  Genesisto  the  Apocalypse  one  self-consistent  doctrine  will  be 
revealed  to  the  reader  who  uses  this  key.  I can  but  mention  one 
or  two  instances  here  as  illustrative  of  my  meaning.  The  Babylon 
of  Nabuchodonosor  is  identical  in  its  spiritual  significance  and  in 
its  relation  to  the  Church  of  God  with  the  Babylon  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse— namely,  the  Rome  of  Nero — and  both  with  the  Babylon 
of  to-day,  repaganised  Western  Europe,  whose  view  of  Catholic 
Christianity  is  so  ignorant  and  so  hostile.  Tyre  is  one  in  spiritual 
meaning — that  is  to  say,  in  its  relation  to  the  economy  of  grace 
—with  the  great  mercantile  states  of  later  days,  such  as  Carthage, 
Venice  and  modern  England.  When  Jeremias  speaks  in  the 
third  chapter  of  his  prophecy  of  the  revolted  ten  tribes  who  have 
cut  themselves  off  from  the  spiritual  commonwealth  of  Judah, 
having  forsaken  the  centre  of  spiritual  unity,  the  priesthood  and 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  is  he  not  speaking  also  of  the  Christian  bodies 
which  have  forsaken  the  centre  of  spiritual  unity  in  Christendom, 
the  Pope  and  Church  of  Rome  ? “ Return,  O ye  revolting 

children,  saith  the  Lord,  for  I am  your  husband  : and  I will 
take  you,  one  of  a city,  and  two  of  a kindred,  and  will  bring  you 
into  Sion.”  Is  not  this  fulfilled  in  our  day  in  the  individual  con- 
versions to  the  Catholic  church  ? It  is  no  arbitrary  twisting  of 
the  sense  to  interpret  Jerusalem  by  the  Church,  the  Aaronic  by 
the  Christian  priesthood,  the  idolatrous  empires  of  Hebrew'  times, 
as  the  pagan,  whether  or  no  nominally  Christian,  empires  of  later 
days,  if,  as  is  the  case,  the  spiritual  values  of  these  things,  their 
significance  for  the  dispensation  of  grace  1 are  identical  throughout. 
The  unity  and  harmony  of  the  mystical  interpretation  is  thus  the 
guarantee  of  its  truth. 


1 It  is  true  that  the  Aaronic  priesthood  did  not  minister  as  the  Christian  grace- 
conferring  sacraments.  They  exercised,  however,  the  same  function  in  the  typical 
economy  of  the  Old  Testament  sacraments  as  the  Christian  hierarchy  in  the 
fulfilled  economy  of  the  Christian  sacraments. 


MYSTICAL  INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  369 

For  the  entire  Judseo-Christian  history  is  simply  the  history 
of  the  economy  of  grace  in  the  world,  the  supernatural  order  at 
work  in  and  largely  against  the  natural.1  “ Two  loves,”  says  St 
Augustine,  “ built  two  cities.  The  love  of  God  built  Jerusalem, 
the  love  of  the  world  Babylon.”  Thus  for  St  Augustine  these 
loves,  supernatural  charity  and  self-love  or  concupiscence,  are  the 
two  great  foes.  Natural  love  of  our  neighbour  has  never  yet  built 
a great  world  order,  for  it  is  only  rendered  possible  by  a confusion 
of  mind  that  will  not  trace  issues  to  the  end.  Now  these  two 
opposing  orders,  the  former  the  work  of  grace,  freeing  man  from 
the  bondage  of  the  finite  and  raising  him  to  union  with  God,  and 
the  latter  the  work  of  fallen  nature  aided  by  the  evil  spirits, 
bringing  man  into  bondage  to  his  own  selfish  desires  and  super- 
ficial life  and  thus  keeping  him  apart  from  God,  are  seen  at  war 
throughout  Scripture  from  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse.  Indeed, 
long  ere  man  was  made  and  fell,  the  strife  began  in  heaven  when 
the  great  intelligences,  now  known  as  the  evil  angels,  rejected 
supernatural  charity.  We  see  the  two  opposing  forces  in  the 
history  of  Cain  and  Abel,  in  the  contrast  between  the  descendants 
of  Cain,  the  inventors  of  the  arts  of  civilisation  and  the  first  city 
builders,  and  the  descendants  of  Seth,  in  the  enmity  between 
the  Canaanites,  Egyptians,  Philistines,  Syrians,  Assyrians,  Baby- 
lonians and  Greeks  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  chosen  people  of 
Israel  on  the  other,  in  the  combined  hostility  of  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees,  of  Herod  and  of  Pontius  Pilate  to  the  Divine  Head  of 
the  supernatural  order,  Christ  Our  Lord,  and  finally  in  the  endless 
struggles,  either  open  or  secret,  between  the  world  and  its  rulers 
and  the  Church  and  her  ruler  the  Pope.*  The  essential  contest  is 
always  the  same  ; the  sole  change  is  the  progressive  realisation 
on  both  sides  of  the  true  issue  at  stake.  But,  indeed,  I have  said 
enough,  I think,  to  indicate  sufficiently  the  consistency,  the 
harmony  and  therefore  the  unity  of  Scripture,  when  all  is  under- 
stood, either  as  a type  of  grace  and  the  supernatural  order  of 
grace,  or  as  an  actual  revelation  or  embodiment  of  that  grace  and 
order.  The  ancients  distinguished  three  species  of  mystical  inter- 
pretation, the  allegorical,  the  moral  and  the  anagogical.  Dante 
speaks  of  them  in  his  letter  to  Can  Grande  and  interprets  in  these 
three  ways  the  first  verse  of  Psalm  cxiii.  The  allegorical  sense 

1 Not  that  the  natural  is  in  itself  opposed  to  the  supernatural.  It  is  the 
adhesion  to  mere  nature  in  opposition  to  the  Divine  call  to  transcend  it  which  causes 
the  conflict. 


370  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

refers  to  Christ,  the  moral  to  the  soul  in  her  life  here  and  now,  the 
anagogical  to  the  soul’s  lot  hereafter.  It  seems  to  me  that  a 
clearer  division  would  be  into  the  following  three  senses:  (1)  the 
reference  to  Christ ; (2)  the  reference  to  His  body,  the  Church ; 
(3)  the  reference  to  the  individual  soul,  either  in  her  state  on  earth 
or  after  death,  as  best  fitted  the  text  to  be  expounded.  In  so  far 
as  the  Church  and  the  soul  are  conformed  to  Christ,  the  principles 
manifested  in  His  life  are  applicable  to  them.  That  this  is  the 
case  in  regard  to  the  Church  has  been  most  clearly  and  most 
beautifully  expounded  by  the  late  Mgr.  Benson  in  his  series  of 
sermons  entitled  “ Christ  and  the  Church.”  The  individual  soul 
also  can  only  reach  Christ’s  glory  by  following  in  His  steps,  if  not 
here  on  earth,  hereafter  in  purgatory.  Moreover,  the  Church  is, 
in  a sense,  the  soul  writ  large,  as  Plato  pointed  out  in  the  Republic 
in  regard  to  the  state.  Therefore,  just  as  Plato  found  justice  in 
the  state  first,  then  in  the  soul,  so  we  may  find  the  principles  and 
operation  of  grace  in  the  Church  first,  then  in  the  individual  soul. 
The  spouse  of  the  Canticles  is  alike  the  faithful  soul,  especially  the 
supremely  and  perfectly  faithful  and  grace-filled  soul  of  Our 
Immaculate  Lady,  and  also  the  Church.  There  are,  moreover,  in- 
numerable side  lines  of  reference,  harmoniously  converging  into 
one  of  these  central  lines  of  interpretation.  For  instance,  a text 
may  refer  equally  well  to  the  soul’s  deliverance  from  sin  to  grace, 
from  this  life  to  the  next,  or  from  purgatory  to  heaven.  All  these 
forms  of  mystical  interpretation,  however,  refer  to  one  and  the 
same  sacrament  or  fulfilment  of  the  dispensation  of  grace.  May 
this  brief  chapter  serve  to  call  attention  to  this  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  to  point  out  a path  of  exegesis,  whereon  the  fathers  of  old 
ever  walked,  but  which  of  late  we  have  so  sadly  neglected.  For 
the  neglect  of  this  interpretation  has  been  and  is  a source  of  evil 
and  scandal,  both  religious  and  ethical.  For  example,  the  Father  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  represented  as  the  author  of  such  hideous  savagery 
as  the  massacre  of  the  Amalecites.  Further,  such  deeds  have  been 
employed  as  a Divine  sanction  of  religious  persecution.  Pope  Pius 
V.  abused  the  Amalecite  massacre  as  a sanction  for  the  massacre 
of  Huguenots,  the  English  Puritans  as  a sanction  for  the  massacre 
of  Irish  Catholics.  Moreover,  we  have  ourselves  witnessed  the  em- 
ployment of  the  Old  Testament  to  hallow  the  cruelty  and  hatred 
of  war.  The  ancient  mystical  interpretation,  the  favourite  inter- 
pretation of  the  Church  since  the  Apostles,  cuts  the  ground  from 
under  such  abuses.  This  should  not  be  its  least  recommendation. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


THE  WITNESS  OF  NATURE  MYSTICISM  TO  THE  TEACHING 
OF  CATHOLIC  MYSTICISM  STUDIED  IN  THE  MYSTICISM 
OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES 

The  Queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  in  judgment  with  this  generation 
and  shall  condemn  it,  because  she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to 
hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon.  St  Matthew  xii.  42. 

Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow  : they  labour  not, 
neither  do  they  spin.  But  I say  to  you  that  not  even  Solomon  in  all 
his  glory  zvas  arrayed  as  one  of  these.  St  Matthew  vi.  28,  29. 

The  Living  God  . . . left  not  Himself  without  testimony,  doing 
good  from  heaven,  giving  rains  and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  our  hearts 
with  food  and  gladness.  Acts  xiv.  16. 

God  . . . hath  made  of  one,  all  mankind  . . . that  they  should 
seek  God,  if  haply  they  may  feel  after  Him  or  find  Him,  although 
He  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us,  for  in  Him  we  live  and  move  and 
are.  Acts  xviii.  26-28. 

If  ever  a period  or  civilisation  has  forgotten  God,  has  been 
without  God  in  the  world,  it  has  been  Western  European  civilisa- 
tion of  the  nineteenth  (must  we  add  the  twentieth)  century. 
Misinterpreted  science  and  unregulated  industrialism  together 
accomplished  in  great  measure  the  impious  boast  of  a certain 
French  statesman  and  extinguished  the  lights  of  heaven  from  the 
spiritual  firmament  of  countless  souls.  Paganism  has  returned 
once  more.  Nevertheless,  as  in  the  pre-Christian  paganism,  God 
gave  some  knowledge  of  Himself  to  favoured  souls,  who  lacked 
the  light  of  revelation  ; so  also  has  He  similarly  favoured  certain 
modern  pagans  who,  although  they  may  have  possessed  an  external 
knowledge  of  Christianity,  never  understood  its  true  meaning. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  end  of  the  Christian  revelation  and  sacra- 
ments is  the  union  of  the  soul  with  God,  a union  whose  highest 
stage  here  on  earth  is  the  union-intuition  of  the  mystic.  In 
divers  fashions  and  in  various  degrees  God  grants  the  immediate 
knowledge  and  union  of  mystical  experience  to  many  souls  whom 
obstacles  external  or  internal  beyond  their  power  to  remove  have 

37i 


372  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

debarred  from  the  acceptance  of  revelation.  Such  were  Plotinus 
and  the  great  Sufis.  Among  these  in  our  own  days  was  Richard 
Jefferies,  the  great  nature  mystic  of  the  nineteenth  century.  He 
was  not,  however,  merely  a nature  mystic — that  is,  one  who 
enjoyed  that  peculiar  sense  of  the  immanence  of  God  in  nature 
which  has  been  possessed  in  greater  or  lesser  degree  by  all  poets 
and  artists.  By  special  grace  he  was  raised  to  a higher  level,  to 
an  intuition  of  God  as  apart  from  and  infinitely  transcendent  of 
the  creation  which  He  has  made.  This  great  mystic,  this  prophet 
and  priest  of  the  Unknown  God,  built  to  His  worship  an  altar 
whose  stones  were  intuitions  of  the  Divine  presence,  its  hangings 
the  richly  embroidered  and  brilliantly  coloured  tapestries  of 
nature’s  loom  and  tincture,  its  ornaments,  the  plate  and  jewels  of 
a prose  that  is  pure  poetiy.  Thereon  he  offered  a fragrant  incense 
of  that  adoring  prayer  which  is  the  aspiration  of  the  soul  to  the 
infinite  God,  Who  alone  can  satisfy  its  need,  alone  fill  its  empti- 
ness. But  the  nineteenth  century  turned  a deaf  earto  his  message, 
leaving  him  to  die  in  penury,  while  it  wasted  its  praise  and  treasure 
on  those  who  exploited  the  new  power  of  machinery  thah  a 
minority  might  enjoy  increased  comfort  and  wealth,  now  declared 
the  sole  realities.  Catholics,  on  the  other  hand,  because  they 
possess  the  revelation  so  long  denied  altogether,  never  completely 
granted  to  Jefferies,  have  often  eyes  only  for  his  errors  and  his 
denials — and  fail  to  perceive  how  much  truth  he  learnt  and  taught. 
To  point  out  the  reality,  depth  and  value  of  the  truth  thus  learnt 
and  taught  by  Jefferies  will  be  the  object  of  this  chapter.  The 
truth  contained  in  the  message  of  Richard  Jefferies  will  prove  to  be 
an  external  confirmation  of  the  teaching  of  Catholic  mysticism  as 
Ave  have  studied  it  in  St  John  of  the  Cross  and  Mother  Cecilia.  As 
such  his  teaching  possesses  a special  interest  for  us,  a special  claim 
on  our  attention.  Jefferies,  however,  has  another  if  quite 
secondary  title  to  our  study  and  affection,  his  incomparable  in- 
sight into  nature,  not  merely  an  external  knowledge  of  natural 
objects — though  he  is  indeed  an  observer  of  unrivalled  diligence 
and  accuracy — but  a sympathetic  understanding  of  the  inner  life 
of  nature  and  of  the  spiritual  values  therein  expressed.  The 
greatest  book  Avritten  by  Jefferies  is  his  spiritual  autobiography, 
The  Story  of  My  Heart.  In  this  alone  does  he  reveal  the  inmost 
aspirations,  the  deepest  intuitions  of  his  God-thirsty  soul.  In  his 
other  works  his  mysticism  is  an  undercurrent  which  rarely  comes 
to  the  surface.  They  are  for  the  most  part  sketches  of  nature,  of 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  373 

the  life  of  the  country-  side  and  its  denizens,  whether  plants,  animals 
or  human  beings.  This  intimate  knowledge  of  nature  was  the 
starting-point  of  his  mysticism.  Therefore  the  student  of  Richard 
Jefferies  should  begin  with  these  nature  sketches.  I do  not 
think  it  would  profit  any,  save  the  ardent  naturalist,  to  wade 
through  all  his  writings,  at  any  rate  not  continuously.  The 
capacity  of  the  soul  to  receive  ideas  and  images  is,  after  all,  limited, 
and  even  more  limited  is  its  capacity  to  receive  emotions  and 
aesthetic  impressions.  When,  however,  the  mind  grows  too  weary 
to  be  any  longer  capable  of  entering  into  the  emotions  and  im- 
pressions received  by  Jefferies  from  the  scenes  and  happenings 
which  he  describes  with  such  wealth  of  detail,  these  descriptions 
become,  what  a certain  clergyman  complained  that  his  writings 
were,  a mere  cataloguing  of  the  minutiae  of  nature.  Happily  his 
work  largely  consists  of  short,  independent  sketches.  Each 
sketch  is  a vivid  presentation  of  some  phase  of  the  life  of  nature, 
or  of  man  in  his  closest  contact  with  nature.  Typical  books  are 
two  collections  of  reprinted  articles  entitled  The  Life  of  the  Fields 
and  The  Open  Air.  The  Open  Air  begins  with  some  of  his  finest 
writing,  a sketch  entitled  “ The  Pageant  of  Summer.”  This  is  a 
description  of  a summer’s  day  in  the  fields,  not  amidst  scenery  of 
peculiar  grandeur  or  extraordinary  beauty,  but  such  as  would  be 
afforded  by  any  walk  through  our  English  country-side.  Green 
rushes,  hedgerow  weeds,  an  oak,  humble  bees,  the  blue  butterflies 
peculiarly  dear  to  Jefferies,  and  our  most  common  birds,  these  are 
the  elements  out  of  which  he  weaves  for  us  the  gorgeous  pageant 
of  summer.  Never  has  any  man  spoken  better  of  Nature  ; never 
has  she  found  a more  loving  or  more  faithful  interpreter.  The 
imagination  of  Jefferies,  which  is  of  the  type  termed  by  Ruskin 
penetrative,  lays  bare  her  secrets.  He  plunges  us  deep  into  her 
life.  The  reader  feels  that  life  in  its  strength,  its  fulness,  its 
mystery,  flooding  the  world  like  a mighty  ocean.  Listen  to  the 
magic  words  in  which  Jefferies  reveals  this  to  all  who  have  ears  to 
hear  him  : “ As  the  wind  wandering  over  the  sea  takes  from  each 
wave  an  invisible  portion,  and  brings  to  those  on  shore  the  ethereal 
essence  of  ocean,  so  the  air,  lingering  among  the  woods  and  hedges 
— green  waves  and  billows — becomes  full  of  fine  atoms  of  summer. 
Swept  from  notched  hawthorn  leaves,  broad-tipped  oak  leaves, 
narrow  ash  sprays  and  oval  willows,  from  vast  elm  cliffs  and  sharp- 
taloned  brambles ; under-brushed  from  the  waving  grasses  and 
stiffening  corn,  the  dust  of  the  sunshine  was  borne  along  and 


374  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

breathed.  Steeped  in  flower  and  pollen  to  the  music  of  bees  and 
birds,  the  stream  of  the  atmosphere  became  a living  thing.  It  was 
life  to  breathe  it,  for  the  air  itself  was  life.  The  strength  of  the 
earth  went  up  through  the  leaves  into  the  wind.  Fed  thus  on  the 
food  of  the  Immortals,  the  heart  opened  to  the  width  and  depth 
of  the  summer,  to  the  broad  horizon  afar,  down  to  the  minutest 
creature  in  the  grass,  up  to  the  highest  swallow.  Winter  shows 
us  Matter  in  its  dead  form,  like  the  Primary  rocks,  like  granite 
and  basalt,  clear  but  cold  and  frozen  crystal.  Summer  shows  us 
Matter  changing  into  life,  sap  rising  from  the  earth  through  a 
million  tubes,  the  alchemic  power  of  light  entering  the  solid  oak  ; 
and  see  ! it  bursts  forth  in  countless  leaves,  living  things  leap  in 
the  grass,  living  things  drift  upon  the  air,  living  things  are  coming 
forth  to  breathe  in  every  hawthorn  bush.”  In  this  passage  has 
been  struck  one  of  Jefferies’  key-notes,  his  intuition  and  union  with 
the  life  of  nature.  This  intuition  was  the  first  stage  of  his  mysti- 
cism, as  yet  wholly  natural,  the  mysticism  of  the  artist  and  poet. 
It  is  the  contemplation  of  nature  by  the  natural  man,  whose  sense 
of  communion  with  her  life  has  not  yet  been  dimmed  or  destroyed 
by  the  interposition  of  an  artificial  culture.  The  poetry  of  Homer 
is  thus  steeped  in  this  sympathetic  intuition  of  nature.  His 
nature  similes  are  cameos  glowing  with  the  colour  of  the  object 
described,  whose  essence  is  revealed  by  some  epithet  which  brings 
it  before  the  reader  in  its  living  reality.  Jefferies  has  returned  to 
this  primitive  communion  with  the  life  of  nature  by  breaking 
through  the  barrier  of  a conventional  civilisation,  which  in  the 
world  of  Homer  did  not  yet  exist.  The  very  style  of  Jefferies  has 
taken  this  Homeric  colouring,  almost  the  Homeric  rhythm.  In 
the  midst  of  the  nineteenth  century  Jefferies  has  recaptured  the 
unsophisticated  fi’eshness  of  the  world’s  youth.  He  has  rejected 
the  world,  and  his  reward  is  at  least  that  sought  by  a kindred  soul, 
the  poet  Wordsworth,  when  he  exclaimed  : 

“ Great  God  ! I’d  rather  be 
A pagan  suckled  in  a creed  outworn, 

So  might  I standing  on  this  pleasant  lea 
Have  sight  of  Proteus  rising  from  the  sea 
Or  hear  old  Triton  blow  his  wreathed  horn.” 

That  mankind  will  not  seek  this  vision  is  to  Jefferies  bitterness  of 
soul.  The  plea,  foreknown  to  pass  unheeded,  that  men  will  with- 
draw awhile  from  the  sordid  effort  of  getting  and  spending  to 
enter  into  the  life  of  Nature,  to  drink  of  her  wine  and  to  receive  of 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  375 

her  treasure  is  the  burden  of  his  exquisite  idyll,  “ Saint  Guido.” 
It  is  this  communion  with  the  life  of  nature  that  made  Jefferies 
long  so  intensely  for  bodily  vigour,  with  its  resultant  capacity  to 
enter  more  deeply  into  that  life,  to  live  with  its  fulness,  to  energise 
more  intensely,  in  harmony  withthe  mighty  energies  of  the  universe. 
It  is  this  longing,  and  no  Epicurean  desire  for  animal  pleasure,  that 
inspires  the  outburst  of  vehement  desire  for  physical  strength  in 
the  passage  that  follows  p.  120  in  The  Story  of  My  Heart.  It  is 
this  longing  that  is  expressed  in  the  same  book  in  the  second 
petition  of  “ The  Lyra  Prayer,”  “ to  make  a discovery  or  perfect 
a method  by  which  the  fleshly  body  might  enjoy  more  pleasure, 
longer  life  and  suffer  less  pain.”  This  desire  is,  of  course,  wholly 
natural  and  pagan,  for  the  life  desired  is  the  limited  life  of  physical 
nature,  but  it  is  really  natural,  not  like  much  modern  paganism, 
unnatural,  and  the  natural,  not  the  unnatural,  is  the  basis  of  the 
supernatural.  Nor  is  this  union-intuition  of  the  life  of  nature  of 
necessity  destroyed  by  the  supernatural.  Is  it  not  the  inspiration 
of  that  beautiful  Easter  Sequence  by  Adam  of  St  Victor,  which 
begins,  “ Mundi  renovatio,”  and  of  its  kindred  Processional  “ Salve 
festa  dies  ” ? 

Noble,  then,  is  the  lower  level  of  Jefferies’  intuition,  but  it  is 
only  the  lower  level.  In'  The  Story  of  My  Heart  we  have  a tran- 
scendent mysticism  also.  This  is  chiefly  to  be  found  in  the 
opening  chapters  and  in  the  last  pages.  The  middle  of  the  book 
is  chiefly  occupied  either  by  the  purely  natural  and  lower  level 
intuition  or  by  bad  philosophising,  which  often  denies  the  very 
truths  which  intuition  had  affirmed. 

The  level  of  Jefferies’  mysticism  to  which  we  first  rise  from 
the  purely  natural  level  hitherto  described  is  that  in  which  the 
phenomena  and  forces  of  nature  are  felt  as  sacramental  of  a higher 
soul  life,  of  spiritual  realities  which  they  symbolise  and  express. 
Matter  is  now  felt  to  be  the  expression  and  embodiment  of 
spirit.  Beautiful  forms  and  colours,  indeed  all  natural  objects, 
convey  in  terms  of  matter  spiritual  ideas,  of  which  ideas  these 
forms  are  the  natural  sacraments.  Contemplation  of  natural 
beauties  and  forces,  so  as  to  receive  into  the  soul  the  spirit  at 
once  revealed  and  hidden  therein,  may  be  termed  a reception  of 
these  natural  sacraments.  To  speak  thus  is  in  no  way  to  disparage 
the  infinitely  higher  supernatural  sacraments 1 which  are  the 

1 Surely  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  as  a Catholic  to  point  out  that  I do  not  apply 
the  term  sacrament  here  or  elsewhere  in  its  strict  theological  sense  to  anything 
save  the  seven  rites  so  termed  by  the  Church. 


376  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

crown  of  the  entire  sacramental  economy  whereby  God  reveals 
Himself  to  the  embodied  soul  of  man.  This  sacramental  recep- 
tion is  Jefferies’  contemplation  of  nature  on  this  level  of  his 
mysticism.  “ I spoke  to  the  sea,”  he  writes.  “ I desired  to  have 
its  strength,  its  mystery  and  glory.  Then  I addressed  the  sun, 
desiring  the  soul  equivalent  of  his  light  and  brilliance,  his  endur- 
ance and  unwearied  race.”  1 “ My  soul  prays  that  I may  gather 

a flower  from  them,  that  I may  have  in  myself  the  secret  and 
meaning  of  the  earth,  the  golden  sun,  the  light,  the  foam-flecked 
sea.”  2 “ Drinking  the  lucid  water  ...  I absorbed  the  beauty 
and  purity  of  it.  I drank  the  thought  of  the  element ; I desired 
soul-nature  pure  and  limpid.”  3 And  again : “ Everywhere  the 
same  deep  desire  for  the  soul  nature  ; to  have  from  all  green 
things  and  from  the  sunlight  the  inner  meaning  which  was  not 
known  to  them.”  4 Yet  again,  as  he  contemplates  the  vast  cycle 
of  aeons  through  which  natural  forces  have  worked,  he  says : 
“ With  all  that  time  and  power  I prayed,  that  I might  have  in  my 
soul  the  intellectual  part  of  it,  the  idea,  the  thought.”  5 And  in 
yet  another  place  he  exclaims : “ Let  divine  beauty  ” — he  is 
referring  to  the  beauty  of  the  human  body — “ bring  to  me  divine 
soul.”  6 “I  was  not  more  than  eighteen,”  he  tells  us,  “when 
an  inner  and  esoteric  meaning  began  to  come  to  me  from  all  the 
visible  universe,  and  indefinable  aspirations  filled  me.  . . . There 
was  a deeper  meaning  everywhere.  The  sun  burned  with  it,  the 
broad  front  of  morning  beamed  with  it ; a deep  feeling  entered 
me  while  gazing  at  the  sky  in  the  azure  noon  and  in  the  star-lit 
evening.”  7 Elsewhere  he  says  : “I  was  aware  of  the  grass  blades, 
the  flowers,  the  leaves  on  hawthorn  and  tree  : I seemed  to  live 
more  largely  through  them,  as  if  each  were  a pore  through  which 
I drank.  ...  I was  plunged  deep  in  existence,  and  with  all  that 
existence  I prayed.”  8 Thus  does  Jefferies  reverently  receive  the 
sacraments  of  nature  and  rise  thereby  to  a higher  plane.  This 
reception  is  essentially  an  intuition  of  God  as  present  in  creation, 
yet  other  than  the  creation  wherein  His  Presence  is  apprehended. 
Intuition  of  the  Divine  immanence  is  essentially  constitutive  of 
nature  mysticism,  as  opposed  to  the  higher  and  purely  super- 
natural mysticism.  Nevertheless,  even  in  nature  mysticism  at 
this  higher  level  there  is  surely  present  a supernatural  element, 


1 Story  of  My  Heart,  pp.  4,  5.  Ed.  1907. 

4 Ibid,.,  p.  13. 

7 Ibid.-,  p.  199. 


2 Ibid.,  p.  1 1. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  19. 

8 Ibid.,  pp.  14,  15. 


3 Ibid.,  p.  21. 
6 Ibid.,  p.  23. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  377 

a co-operation  of  Divine  grace.  For  this  sense  of  the  sacramental 
character  of  the  material  universe  is  a perception  of  the  truth, 
that  all  things  are  made  and  sustained  by  God,  of  Whom  they  are 
a true  though  infinitely  inadequate  revelation,  that  His  Being  is  in 
them  and  works  through  them,  and  that  all  that  they  are  is  in 
Him  eminently  so  that  their  positive  being  is  a participation  of 
His.  We  have,  however,  already  seen  that  the  intuition  of  this 
truth  constitutes  an  essential  part  of  the  intuition  of  the  super- 
natural mystics,  even  of  those  whose  teaching  is  most  severely 
transcendental,  and  that  it  is  emphasised  by  St  John  of  the  Cross 
and  Mother  Cecilia. 

It  is  tine  that  the  immanental  intuition  in  which  these  super- 
natural mystics  beheld  this  truth  was  not  the  same  as  that  of  the 
nature  mystic.  It  was  a consequence  and  concomitant  of  their 
direct  intuition  of  the  transcendent  Deity,  whereas  the  latter  was 
given  on  a far  lower  level  and  by  a far  inferior  mode  as  an  indirect 
intuition  of  the  hidden  immanence  of  God  in  creatures.  There- 
fore, whereas  the  former  intuition  is  essentially  supernatural,  the 
basis  of  the  latter  is  natural.  Nevertheless  the  truth  common  to 
both  intuitions  argues  for  the  working  of  grace  in  the  production 
even  of  the  lower  and  more  natural  intuition.  Moreover,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  lower  intuition  when  it  has  attained  this  sacra- 
mental plane  is  of  God  as  distinct  from  the  creation  in  which  He 
is  immanent.  This  also  points  to  the  working  of  grace.  There- 
fore, though  I cannot  prove  a supernatural  element  and  co- 
operation in  the  nature  mysticism  of  Jefferies,  even  at  his  second 
and  mediate  level  of  intuition,  there  is  good  reason  to  posit  that 
supernatural  element  and  co-operation.  I therefore  claim  with 
confidence  the  presence  of  such  a supernatural  element  and 
operation  in  this  second  and  sacramental  level  of  Jefferies’ 
mysticism,  which  is  pre-eminently  his  nature  mysticism. 

We  saw  above  that  Jefferies’  sense  of  the  life  of  nature  gave 
birth  to  a prayer  for  a fuller  natural  life,  for  a deeper  and  wider 
share  in  this  natural  life  and  energy.  His  deeper  intuition  of 
a spiritual  reality  in  and  behind  the  life  of  nature  gives  birth 
to  a deeper  prayer,  no  longer  wholly  natural.  On  p.  30  of  The 
Story  of  My  Heart  Jefferies  expressly  distinguishes  this  higher 
prayer  “ the  far  deeper  emotion  in  which  the  soul  was  alone  con- 
cerned ” from  the  lower  “ Lyra  ” prayer  for  a fuller  and  more 
powerful  life  in  the  natural  order.  This  deeper  prayer  was,  he 
tells  us,  essentially  inexpressible.  “ I felt,”  he  says,  “ an  emotion 


378  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  the  soul  beyond  all  definition  ; prayer  is  a puny  thing  to  it  and 
the  word  is  a rude  sign  to  the  feeling.”  1 Again  : “ One  of  the 
greatest  difficulties  I have  encountered  is  the  lack  of  words  to 
express  ideas.  By  the  word  soul,  or  psyche,  I mean  that  inner 
consciousness  which  aspires.  By  prayer  I do  not  mean  a request 
for  anything  preferred  to  a Deity.  I mean  intense  soul-emotion, 
intense  aspiration.”  2 This  prayer  of  Jefferies  possesses  two 
essential  properties  of  mystical  prayer:  (1)  it  transcends  intel- 
lectual formulation  ; (2)  it  proceeds  from  the  radical  ego,  which  is 
also  the  root  of  the  will,  is  thus  the  aspiration  of  the  centre  of  the 
soul,  of  the  synderesis.3  We  should  also  note  how  miserably  in- 
adequate was  the  so-called  Christianity  learnt  by  Jefferies  in  his 
youth,  in  which  prayer  is  conceived  as  essentially  a begging  for 
particular  favours,  usually  of  a temporal  nature.  This  prayer  of 
Jefferies  is  not  for  any  particular  object,  another  essential  char- 
acter of  mystical  prayer  or  contemplation.  He  says,  indeed,  in 
so  many  words  that  it  was  not  for  an  object.4  On  the  same  page, 
however,  he  also  says  : “ What  I laboured  for  was  soul-life,  more 
soul-nature,  to  be  exalted,  to  be  full  of  soul-learning.”  His  desire 
was  an  unlimited  desire  for  spiritual  reality,  for  an  infinite 
and  ineffable  soul-life,  a life  or  being  insusceptible  of  definition. 
This  ineffable  and  unlimited  soul-life  or  spiritual  reality  is,  as 
we  saw,  often  conceived  as  the  spirit  immanent  in  nature. 
In  varying  degrees,  however,  it  is  realised  as  transcendent  of 
nature.  The  realisation  of  this  transcendence  constitutes  the 
third  and  highest  level  of  Jefferies’  mysticism,  a level  which  is 
most  decisively  and  entirely  supernatural.  Indeed  its  obvious 
supernaturalism  is  a further  argument  for  the  existence  of  super- 
natural co-operation  on  the  mediate  level  of  nature  mysticism 
from  which  it  sprang.  “ From  all  the  ages,”  so  writes  Jefferies, 
“ my  soul  desired  to  take  that  soul  life  which  had  flowed  through 
them.”  5 “I  prayed  that  . . . my  soul  might  be  more  than  the 
cosmos  of  life.”6  “That  I might  have  the  deepest  of  soul-life, 
the  deepest  of  all,  deeper  far  than  all  this  greatness  of  the  visible 
universe  and  even  of  the  invisible  ; that  I might  have  a fulness  of 
soul  till  now  unknown  and  utterly  beyond  my  own  conception.”  7 

1 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  5.  2 Ibid.,  p.  202. 

3 This  latter  character  I conclude  from  Jefferies’  account  of  his  prayer.  There 

is,  of  course,  no  explicit  statement  to  this  effect. 

4 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  8. 

6 Ibid.,  p.  16. 


6 Ibid.,  p.  14- 

7 Ibid.,  p.  17. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  379 

This  sense  of  a soul-life  transcendent  of  physical  nature  is 
expressed  still  more  plainly  in  another  passage.  “ Now,  this 
moment  give  me  all  the  thought,  all  the  idea,  expressed  in 
the  cosmos  around  me”  (immanental  and  sacramental  level). 
“ Give  me  still  more,  for  the  interminable  universe,  past  and 
present,  is  but  earth ; give  me  the  unknown  soul,  wholly  apart 
from  it,  the  soul  of  which  I know  only  that  when  I touch  the 
ground,  when  the  sunlight  touches  my  hand,  it  is  not  there  ” 1 
(transcendental  level).  He  perceives  also  that  his  own  soul  is 
nearer  akin  to  this  unknowable  soul-life  than  is  physical  nature. 
“The  mystery,”  he  says,  “and  the  possibilities  are  not  in  the 
roots  of  the  grass,  nor  is  the  depth  of  things  in  the  sea  ; they  are 
in  my  existence,  in  my  soul.”  2 Who  can  doubt  the  transcendent 
and  supernatural  character  of  this  utterance  ? Do  not  all  the 
mystics  from  St  Augustine  downward s cry  out  that  God  dwells 
hidden  in  the  centre  of  the  soul,  and  that  there  and  there  alone 
can  He  be  sought  and  found  ? Indeed  the  language  of  Jefferies 
in  the  two  passages  last  quoted  echoes  that  famous  passage  of  the 
Confessions,  which  begins  : “ I asked  the  earth  and  it  answered 
me,  ‘ I am  not  He  ’ ” (St  Aug.,  Confessions,  x.  9).  At  first, 
indeed,  this  sense  of  the  transcendent  spirit-being  seems  solely, 
or  at  least  normally,  to  have  been  given  through  the  instrument- 
ality of  natural  beauties.  This  was  not,  however,  invariably  the 
case,  for  Jefferies  tells  us  that  this  same  thought  rose  in  his  mind 
in  the  deepest  darkness  of  the  night..3  As  time  progressed  the 
need  of  nature  images  became  less.  “ It  ” (the  prayer)  “ is  now 
less  solely  associated  with  the  sun  and  sea,  hills,  woods  or  beauteous 
human  shape.  It  is  always  within.  It  requires  no  waking,  no 
renewal ; it  is  always  with  me.  I am  it ; the  fact  of  my  existence 
expresses  it.”4  This  increasing  transcendence  of  images  is,  as 
we  have  seen,  characteristic  of  that  progressive  purgation  from 
the  limits  of  the  finite,  which  is  the  negative  way  of  mysticism,  as 
it  is  taught,  for  instance,  in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel.  This 
complete  transcendence  of  creatures  finally  attained  by  Jefferies 
in  his  irrepressible  aspiration,  which  is  supreme  prayer  towards 
the  all-transcendent  Reality  apprehended  by  mystical  intuition 
beyond  thought  and  expression,  is  most  powerfully  affirmed  in 
the  concluding  passage  of  his  book.  “ The  great  sun,”  he  there 
writes,  “ burning  in  the  sky,  the  sea,  the  firm  earth,  all  the  stars 


1 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  20. 
3 Ibid.,  p.  17. 


2 Ibid.,  p.  35. 

4 Ibid.,  pp.  27,  28. 


.380  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

of  night  are  feeble — all,  all  the  cosmos  is  feeble  : it  is  not  strong 
enough  to  utter  my  prayer-desire.  My  soul  cannot  reach  to  its 
full  desire  of  prayer.  I need  no  earth,  or  sea,  or  sun  to  think  my 
thought.  If  my  thought  part,  the  psyche,  were  entirely  separated 
from  the  body  and  from  the  earth,  I should  of  myself  desire  the 
same.  In  itself  my  soul  desires,  my  existence,  my  soul-existence 
is  in  itself  my  prayer,  and  so  long  as  it  exists,  so  long  will  I pray 
that  I may  have  the  fullest  soul-life.”  1 This  ascent  from  intui- 
tion of  the  Divine  immanence  in  nature  to  intuition  of  the  Divine 
transcendence,  indeed  the  entire  process  from  the  first  purely 
natural  level  onwards,  is  closely  paralleled  by  a Catholic  mystic 
contemporary  with  Jefferies.  In  her  Spiritual  Journal 2 Lucie 
Christine  gives  a detailed  and  very  beautiful  account  of  her  rise 
from  the  purely  natural  intuition  of  the  life  of  nature  (Jefferies’ 
first  level)  through  the  “mixed  ” intuition  of  God  immanent  in 
nature  yet  other  than  and  thus  transcendent  of  nature  to  the 
third  purely  supernatural  intuition  of  His  transcendence. 
“ Everything  beautiful,”  she  writes,  “ fascinated  and  fired  my 
soul  with  enthusiasm.  The  first  glimpse  of  the  sea  from  the 
cliffs  drew  tears  from  my  eyes.  I often  remained  whole  hours 
contemplating  its  immensity  without  being  able  to  express  what 
I felt.”  Here  is  the  first,  purely  immanental  and  natural  intuition. 
“ I sought  Thee,  my  God,  in  all  things  beautiful,  and  in  all  things 
I found  Thee.  I asked  Thee  of  the  sea.  . . . Thou  wert  reposing 
in  its  depths.  ...  I met  Thee  in  the  impenetrable  gloom  of 
forests,  I saw  Thee  pass  in  the  lightning  flash.  ...  I have  felt 
Thee  in  the  hidden  travail  of  nature.  I sought  Thee  at  the  hands 
of  all  creatures,  and  they  all  replied,  ‘ Behold,  He  is  here.’  ” This 
is  the  immanental-transcendent  intuition  of  the  second  level — in 
which,  as  Lucie  distinctly  tells  us,  the  supernatural  is  present. 
“ Soon  I felt  something  strange.  . . . Everything  I had  admired 
. . . still  appeared  to  me  equally  beautiful  ; nevertheless  I could 
no  longer  enjoy  it  as  before.  As  the  stars  fade  away  in  the  light 
of  the  sun,  so  everything  grew  pale  in  the  glance  of  God  upon  my 
soul ; I gazed  on  sea  and  land  and  saw  only  God.”  3 Here  is  the 
third  and  wholly  transcendental  level,  a level  completely  super- 
natural, the  level  of  which  Jefferies  speaks  in  the  passage  last 
quoted.  The  very  language  of  Lucie  in  this  passage  closely  re- 

1 Story  of  My  Heart , pp.  206,  207.  2 English  translation,  pp.  131-134. 

3 This  passage  has  been  already  quoted  in  Chapter  V.  but  is  so  apposite  to 

this  explanation  of  Jefferies’  mysticism  that  I venture  to  cite  it  again  here. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  381 

calls  that  of  Jefferies,  in  particular  her  account  of  the  mediate 
intuition  which  is  the  higher  intuition  of  the  nature  mystic. 
Lucie  Christine  thus  confirms  and  explains  in  the  light  of  her  full 
Catholic  faith  the  intuition  of  Jefferies  on  all  its  levels. 

The  Unlimited  soul-life,  this  Reality  beyond  image  and  con- 
cept transcendent  of  nature  wherein  It  is  immanent,  which  is 
the  object  of  Jefferies’  highest  prayer  and  intuition,  is,  of  course, 
known  to  the  Christian  mystic  as  God.  Jefferies  refuses  to  term 
it  God.  On  the  contrary,  he  says  : “ I realise  the  existence  of  an 
inexpressible  entity  infinitely  higher  than  Deity”1;  and  elsewhere : 
“I  prayed  that  I might  touch  to  the  unutterable  existence  infinitely 
higher  than  Deity.”  2 “I  know  that  there  is  something  infinitely 
higher  than  Deity.”  3 Jefferies’  denial  of  God  is,  however,  wholly 
verbal,  at  least  when  he  is  expressing  his  mystical  experience. 
A Being  identical  with  the  Divine  Being  experienced  by  Christian 
mystics  is  that  Divine  Being,  is  God.  The  reason  for  Jefferies’ 
verbal  denial  is  that  he  understands  by  God  the  anthropomoiphic 
and  therefore  limited  deity  of  his  childhood’s  creed.  How 
anthropomorphic  and  limited  his  notion  of  the  Christian  God 
was  is  seen  in  the  words  on  p.  106  : “Go  higher  than  a god  ; 
to  the  Entity  unknown.”  No  one  who  understood  Christian 
theism  could  speak  thus  of  a god,  as  if  there  might  be  many  gods. 
Jefferies  was  obviously  ignorant  of  the  true  Catholic  Theism. 
Had  he  known  it  he  would  have  recognised  the  Being  in  whose 
communion  and  intuition  his  inner  life  consisted.  He  enjoyed  an 
intuition  of  God,  as  infinite  and  therefore  unknowable  by  any 
human  concept.  He  falsely  imagined  the  Christian  god  to  be 
finite  and  comprehensible  by  such  concepts.  Hence  his  very 
intuition  of  God  made  him  reject  the  false  notion  which  he  had 
formed  of  the  Godhead  as  the  object  of  Christian  belief.  Fidelity 
to  the  true  theism  really  taught  by  the  Church,  to  the  negative 
knowledge  of  Dionysius  and  the  schools,  a theism  which  he  had 
learned  by  his  mystical  intuition,  compelled  him  to  deny  the 
existence  of  the  idol  which  he  had  mistaken  for  the  God  of 
Christian  theism.  His  agnosticism  is  therefore  the  agnosticism 
of  St  John  of  the  Cross,  not  that  of  Herbert  Spencer,  and  his 
verbal  atheism  proves  his  attainment  of  the  true  theism. 

Jefferies’  ignorance  of  his  own  theism  is  indeed  a warning  to  us 
who  believe  never  to  allow  our  intellectual  or  spiritual  life  to  out- 
grow our  understanding  of  the  Catholic  Faith.  If  this  should 
2 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  57.  2 Ibid.,  p.  6.  3 Ibid.,  p.  206. 


382  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

happen,  we  must  amend  the  defect  by  a deeper  study  of  our  creed. 
Otherwise  Ave  shall  either  stunt  our  spiritual  growth  by  confining  it 
within  the  religious  ideas  that  Ave  have  outgroAvn,  or  Ave  shall  lose 
our  faith  entirely.  One  of  these  two  evils  is  the  inevitable  result 
of  a false  identification  of  the  Catholic  Faith  with  a superficial, 
often  a childish,  understanding  of  it.  We  learn  also  from  Jefferies 
that  the  line  of  demarcation  between  atheism  and  theism  has  often 
been  Avrongly  draAvn.  The  real  test  is  not  verbal  pi’ofession. 
Everyone  Avho  makes  the  limited  his  end  alike  of  will,  of  thought 
and  of  intuition  and  has  thus  said  in  his  heart,  “ There  is  no  God,” 
is  an  atheist,  no  matter  Iioav  theistic  or  even  Christian  his  external 
profession.  Everyone  who  apprehends,  whether  by  will,  by 
thought  or  by  intuition,  the  unlimited  and  therefore  spiritual 
Being  existent  in  and  beyond  the  limited  is  in  very  truth  a theist, 
no  matter  Iioav  inadequate  or  perverted  his  intellectual  formula- 
tion of  that  apprehension,  nay,  even  if  such  formulation  be  entirely 
lacking.1  If  Ave  do  not  apply  this  test  we  shall  be  led  to  absurd 
results.  We  shall  be  obliged,  for  instance,  to  label  the  deeply 
religious  Buddha  an  atheist,  the  irreligious  and  rationalist  Voltaire 
atheist. # We  must  therefore  apply  the  test  not  of  verbal  profes- 
sion, but  of  the  limited  or  unlimited  nature  of  aim  and  apprehen- 
sion. Nietzsche  is  in  the  depths  of  his  soul  a theist,  for  his 
message  ends  Avith  ewigkeit,  eternity,  the  unlimited.  On  the  other 
hand,  Mr  Snooks,  of  Ealing,  who  attends  eleven  o’clock  service  on 
Sunday  for  the  sake  of  respectability,  but  Avhose  entire  soul  in  all 
its  functions  is  confined  by  limits,  is  a veritable  atheist.  Jefferies 
is  therefore  a theist,  however  loudly  he  may  affirm  and  imagine 
the  contrary.2  Indeed  his  account  of  the  Object  of  his  mystical 
intuition  is  even  verbally  identical  with  the  mystical  theology 
of  the  Areopagite  Avhose  doctrine  has  met  with  such  entire  accept- 
ance and  veneration  by  the  Church.  For  his  verbal  atheism 
passes  over  into  that  transcendent  and  therefore  negative  state- 
ment of  theism  which  is  found  in  Dionysius.  Jefferies’  teaching 
of  “ the  unutterable  existence  infinitely  higher  than  deity — the 
inexpressible  entity  infinitely  higher  than  deity — something 
better  than  a god — something  higher  than  a god — something 


1 Pantheism  of  the  higher  type  is  a perverted  formulation  of  theism  as  under- 
stood here  in  a wide  and  untechnical  sense. 

2 Obviously  I do  not  maintain  that  Nietzsche  was  a theist  in  the  technical 
sense — for  that  would  mean  that  his  discursive  reason  accepted  theism,  which, 
of  course,  was  not  the  case. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  383 

infinitely  higher  than  deity,”  is  but  an  echo  of  the  Dionysian 
doctrine  of  “ the  Super-Deity  Which  is  above  all  superessentially  ” 
— the  “ Triad  Supernal,  both  super-Qo<\  and  super-good — He  Who 
is  super-source,  beyond  even  the  so-called  Deity  and  Goodness, 
seeing  He  is  beyond  source  of  Divinity  and  source  of  Goodness — 
He  Who  neither  is  Deity.”  Clearly  Jefferies  and  Dionysius  teach 
one  and  the  same  theology,  expressed  in  a terminology  almost 
identical.  Only,  unhappily,  Jefferies,  unlike  the  Areopagite,  did 
not  know  that  the  Christian  God  is  this  super-divine  Deity  in 
Whom  both  alike  believed. 

In  the  third  chapter  Jefferies  reaffirms  his  doctrine  of  an 
Entity  that  “ is  in  addition  to  the  existence  of  the  soul,  in  addition 
to  immortality  and  beyond  the  idea  of  the  deity.”  “ I think  there 
is  something  more  than  existence.”1  He  proceeds,  however,  to 
inform  us  that  this  intuition  of  an  unknowable  Being  beyond  all 
we  can  think  or  imagine  is  his  own  discovery,  a Fourth  Spiritual 
Idea  gained  for  man  ! “ There  is,”  he  continues,  “ an  immense 

ocean  over  which  the  mind  can  sail  ” — this  super-Deity  “ upon 
which  the  vessel  of  thought  has  not  yet  been  launched.  I hope 
to  launch  it.”  How  astonished  he  would  have  been  to  read  this 
newly  discovered  truth,  this  fourth  idea,  in  Dionysius  or  in  St 
Thomas,  this  doctrine  that  God  is  above  existence,  as  creatures 
possess  and  understand  it.  In  this  very  book  Jefferies  utters 
a wish  that  all  the  writings  of  mediaeval  philosophy  might  be 
destroyed  as  unreal  figments  coming  between  man  and  reality. 
Had  he  only  read  those  writings,  he  would  have  found  them  centred 
around  the  very  doctrine  fondly  imagined  to  have  been  now  dis- 
covered for  the  first  time  by  himself.  So  orthodox,  indeed,  is  the 
teaching  of  Jefferies  that  we  can  obtain  from  his  book  the  essential 
principles  of  Christian  monotheism  as  taught  or  presupposed  by 
the  Christian  mystics.  Only  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  absent 
which  rests  on  revelation  alone,  and  is  only  manifested  to  those 
mystics  who  have  first  learned  it  from  the  Church.  The  Divine 
Infinity,  incomprehensibility,  immanence  and  transcendence,  all 
these  we  have  seen  taught  by  Jefferies.  It  is  also  clear  from  the 
above  quotations  that  he  conceived  of  the  unknowable  Being  as 
essentially  nearer  to  spirit  than  to  matter ; it  is  “ the  thought 
that  lies  therein  . . . the  spirit  that  I feel  so  close.”  2 It  is  a 
“ Soul-Entity.”  3 Jefferies  teaches  us  in  effect  that  the  Ultimate 
Reality,  though  in  Itself  unknowable,  is  known  by  its  works  and 

1 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  54.  2 Ibid.,  p.  43.  3 Ibid.,  p.  54. 


384  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

is  more  adequately,  though  still  infinitely  inadequately,  repre- 
sented by  personal  spirit  than  by  impersonal  matter,  is  therefore 
supra-personal,  not  infra- personal.  We  have  seen  that  Jefferies 
also  taught  that  it  is  through  the  soul  that  we  are  in  closest 
relationship  with  this  Ultimate  supra-personal  (and  therefore 
personal)  Being.  Jefferies  feels  that  his  own  soul  is  capable  of  so 
intimate  a union  with  this  Divine  Being  that  it  seems  at  times  to 
be  identical  with  that  Being  or  life.  The  infinite  soul-life  which 
he  seeks,  though  given  from  without,  is  to  be  in  a true  sense  his 
own  soul-life.  This  is,  of  course,  to  affirm  the  possibility  of  the 
transforming  union  of  the  soul  with  God,  of  the  deification  of  the 
soul.  The  third  chapter  is  devoted  to  a description  of  Jefferies’ 
experience  of  eternity  and  immortality  as  more  real  and  more 
ultimate  than  time  and  mortality,  just  as  spirit  is  more  real,  more 
ultimate  than  matter.  Jefferies  feels  himself  rapt  out  of  time  into 
the  Now  of  eternity.  “ This  Now  is  eternity.  . . . We  are  . . . 
in  eternity.”  1 “I  cannot  understand  time.  It  is  eternity  now. 
I am  in  the  midst  of  it.  . . . Now  is  eternity  ; now  is  the  immortal 
life.  Here  this  moment.  ...  I exist  in  it.  . . . To  the  soul 
there  is  no  past  and  no  future  ; all  is,  and  will  be  ever,  in  now.”  2 
“ I dwell  this  moment  in  the  eternal  Now  that  has  ever  been  and 
will  be.”  3 There  is  perhaps  in  this  passage  a certain  confusion 
between  the  eternal  now  of  God  and  the  soul-time  of  the  finite 
spirit  which  transcends  clock-time  (see  von  Hugel).  But  the 
experience  of  eternity  is  there.  Jefferies’  intuition  is  the  temporary 
entrance  of  the  mystic  into  the  everlasting  Now  of  eternal  life,  no 
mere  experience  of  a Bergsonian  duree  and  becoming.  It  is  rather 
Suso’s  experience  of  “ a breaking  forth  of  the  sweetness  of  eternal 
life  felt  as  present  in  the  stillness  of  unvarying  contemplation.”  4 
A consequence  of  this  experience  of  eternal  life  is  a conviction  of 
personal  immortality,  that  the  soul  which  thus  enters  into  eternity 
cannot  die  with  the  time-subject  body.  It  is  true  that  Jefferies 
also  says  that  the  eternal  life  apprehended  transcends  immortality 
and  emphasises  its  unknowability.  Here,  however,  Jefferies  has 
again  in  view  the  popular  notion  of  a future  life  which  is  but  the 
unending  continuation  of  our  time-life  on  earth,  and  this  concept 
he  rightly  rejects,  as  all  mystics  have  rejected  it. 

In  this  same  chapter  Jefferies  points  out  that  miracles, 

1 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  45.  2 Ibid..,  p.  43.  3 Ibid,.,  p.  49. 

4 Life,  trs.  Knox,  p.  10.  See  also  Lucie  Christine,  Spiritual  Journal,  Eng. 

trs.,  pp.  52  and  64. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  385 

interventions  of  the  ultimate  spiritual  reality  and  of  superhuman 
spirits  in  the  phenomena  and  order  of  nature,  are  not  only  possible 
but  in  a sense  perfectly  natural.1  “ I see  no  reason  at  all  why 
they  should  not  take  place  this  day.”  He  even  witnesses  to  the 
existence  of  superhuman  finite  spirits.  “ The  air,”  he  says,  “ the 
sunlight,  the  night,  all  that  surrounds  me  seems  crowded  with  in- 
expressible powers,  with  the  influence  of  souls,  or  existences.”  2 
Miracles  and  angels  laughed  out  of  court  by  modern  enlighten- 
ment, as  Jefferies  laughs  out  of  court  the  mediaeval  treatises  on 
these  matters,  are  here  affirmed  as  facts  of  spiritual  experience 
by  the  mystic  who  of  all  others  is  most  eager  to  be  free  from  all 
traditional  teaching,  to  be  alone  with  reality,  without  the  media- 
tion of  church,  creed  or  philosophy.  I cannot  conceive  any  more 
convincing  vindication  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  Catholic 
theology  and  mysticism.  The  intuition  of  Jefferies,  the  verbal 
atheist,  indeed  the  real  sceptic  of  non-mystical  moments,  is  a 
powerful  apologia  for  the  truth  of  Catholic  theism  and  mystical 
theology. 

Jefferies  bears  witness  not  only  to  the  Object  but  also  to  the 
Method  of  mystical  theology,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Christian  mystics. 
It  is  true  that  he  sets  out  from  the  Divine  Immanenee  in  nature, 
which  for  the  Christian  mystics  is  a secondary  intuition  conse- 
quent on  achieved  union  with  God.  But  Jefferies,  as  we  saw,  has 
also  attained  to  God  transcendent,  and  has  done  so  by  the  only 
possible  way,  the  negative  way — the  way  that  rejects  the  limita- 
tions of  finite  beings  in  order  to  attain  to  the  Infinite  Being.  Like 
them,  Jefferies  had  to  purify  the  will  from  limited  attachments, 
the  consciousness  from  limited  forms.  To  the  former  purgation 
many  passages  bear  witness.  In  the  preface  he  says  : “ The 
surroundings,  the  clothes,  the  dwelling,  the  social  status,  the 
circumstances  are  to  me  utterly  indifferent.  . . . The  pageantry 
of  power,  the  still  more  foolish  pageantry  of  wealth,  the  senseless 
precedence  of  place,  I fail  words  to  express  my  utter  contempt 
for  such  pleasures  or  such  ambitions.”  Jefferies  also  practised 
the  purgation  of  the  consciousness  from  limited  forms.  In 
chapter  six  he  relates  the  preliminary  stage  of  this  purgation,  his 
refusal  to  allow  himself  to  be  imprisoned  by  the  “ endless  and 
nameless  circumstances  of  eveiyday  existence,  which  by  degrees 
build  a wall  about  the  mind  so  that  it  travels  in  a constantly 

1 Story  of  My  Heart,  pp.  48,  49. 

\P.  49.  See  also  top  of  same  page. 


386  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

narrowing  circle.”  To  effect  this  he  used  to  take  solitary  walks, 
for  he  too  had  learned  the  truth  of  God’s  promise  to  the  soul  : 
“ I will  lead  her  into  solitude,  and  there  will  I speak  to  her  heart.” 
Rut  he  went  further,  and  as  he  rose  from  God-immanent  to  God- 
transcendent  he  learned  to  exclude  even  the  well-beloved  forms 
of  nature.  “ Sometimes,”  he  says,  “ I have  concentrated  myself, 
and  driven  away  by  continued  will  all  sense  of  outward  appear- 
ances, looking  straight  with  the  full  power  of  my  mind  inwards  on 
myself.”  1 He  proceeds  to  tell  us  how  he  found  within  himself  an 
ego  not  wholly  comprehensible,  through  which  he  was  brought 
into  contact  with  an  unknown  life,  that  was  really,  though  he 
could  not  so  name  it,  the  Being  of  God.  “ I find  ‘ I ’ am  there,  an 
‘ I ’ I do  not  wholly  understand  or  know  [the  normally  subliminal 
centre].  . . . Recognising  it,  I feel  on  the  margin  of  a life  un- 
known, very  near,  almost  touching  it  ” (the  intuition  of  God’s 
especial  presence  in  the  unlimited  centre).2  We  thus  find  the 
fundamental  principles  of  St  John’s  active  night  or  purgation 
stated  and  practised  by  Jefferies.  The  passive  purgation  has 
also  a certain  counterpart.  Not  only  did  he  detach  himself  from 
sensible  forms  during  his  highest  contemplation,  but,  as  we  saw 
above,  these  forms  tended  to  fall  away  from  him  of  themselves. 
Indeed  the  entire  mystical  portion  of  Jefferies’  book  is  the  active 
achievement  and  the  passive  gift  of  that  escape  from  the  limits 
of  the  finite  into  the  infinite  which  is  the  essence  of  the  mystical 
way.  Moreover,  God  sent  him  the  gi'eat  purifier  that  invariably 
accompanies,  indeed  conditions,  high  mystical  insight— namely, 
suffering  and  external  failure.  Lacking  recognition,  in  crippling 
poverty,  compelled  to  long  periods  of  uncongenial  drudgery,  he 
was  also,  during  his  later  years,  the  victim  of  an  internal  ailment 
that  caused  him  the  most  acute  suffering.  Indeed  The  Story  of 
My  Heart  was  largely  written  amidst  intense  physical  agony. 

It  is  true  that  his  purgation  did  not  possess  the  intensity  or 
the  completeness  of  the  purgation  of  the  great  Christian  mystics. 
Neither  did  his  mystical  experience  possess  the  height,  the  perfec- 
tion or  the  personal  love  of  their  experience.  It  lacked  the 
personal  love  of  the  Christian  mystic  for  His  Incarnate  Lord,  it 
lacked  the  sense  of  sin  and  of  the  need  of  redemption,  was,  in  a 
word,  open  to  St  Augustine’s  criticism  of  Neoplatonism.  It  also 
lacked  the  height  of  Christian  mysticism.  Jefferies  never  reached 
the  supreme  degrees  of  union.  For  that  very  reason  it  lacked  its 

1 Story  of  My  Heart,  p.  49.  2 Ibid,  p.  50. 


THE  MYSTICISM  OF  RICHARD  JEFFERIES  387 

completeness.  The  centre  of  Jefferies’  soul  found  God  in  inter- 
mittent intuition  and  union — but  his  whole  soul  was  not  subjected 
to  the  centre  and  its  experience.  Lower  levels  of  experience 
remained  side  by  side  with  the  higher,  only  half  distinguished  from 
them.  Such  was  that  naturalistic  Homeric  level  frequent  with 
him  to  the  end.  Although  his  will  was  fundamentally  united  with 
the  will  of  God  through  his  love  of  the  Unknown  Deity,  in  union 
with  Whom  he  found  his  highest  good,  he  was  by  no  means  wholly 
resigned  to  the  Divine  disposition  of  his  life.  Moreover,  despite  his 
efforts  to  achieve  entire  independence  of  all  previous  speculation, 
his  intellect  was  still  enslaved  by  the  false  tenets  of  the  dominant 
philosophy  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a pseudo-scientific  material- 
ism. His  discursive  reason  often  denies  the  affirmations  of  his 
mystical  intuition.  He  refuses  to  credit  the  actual  occurrence  of 
miracles,  although  he  has  seen  their  possibility  and  likelihood. 
Still  worse,  he  is  ready  to  believe  that  after  all  death  is  the 
extinction  of  the  ego  and  its  resolution  into  the  material  elements ! 
He  is  therefore  eager  to  realise  human  happiness  in  this  world, 
and  is  apt  to  translate  his  mystical  aspiration  after  the  life  of 
God  into  the  lower  key  of  a desire  for  the  enjoyment  by  posterity 
of  a full,  powerful  and  happy  life  on  earth.  His  realisation  that 
man’s  nature  requires  the  completion  and  expression  of  a perfect 
soul  by  and  through  a perfect  body,  the  principle  which  underlies 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection,  is  distorted  by  his  this- 
worldly  perspective  into  the  craving  for  a beautiful  and  active 
body  in  this  life.  Thus  his  intellect  is  at  strife  with  his  mystical 
intuition.  The  normal  Jefferies  is  not  at  one  with  Jefferies  the 
mystic.  It  may  seem  strange  that  God  should  have  permitted 
these  intellectual  errors  to  co-exist  with  mystical  union  and 
intuition.  We  must  remember,  however,  that  many  opponents 
of  religion  attempt  to  explain  away  the  witness  of  mysticism  by 
denying  its  independence.1  Its  intuition  is,  they  say,  but  the  leflex 
of  a creed  previously  accepted.  Richard  Jefferies  gives  the  lie 
direct  to  this  assertion.  So  far  as  any  creed  dominated  him,  and 
that  was  only  in  part,  it  was  dogmatic  materialism.  The  creed  of 
his  childhood — an  imperfect  Christianity  childishly  understood — 
he  rejected  with  contempt.  But  the  work  of  the  spirit  of  God  in 
his  soul  overcame  the  philosophy  of  his  extra-mystical  intelligence, 
and  compelled  him  to  bear  witness  to  the  Light  in  an  age  of  dark- 
ness, to  affirm  an  experimental  knowledge  of  God  and  eternal  life 

1 E.g.  Prof.  Hoffding,  Philosophy  of  Religion  (pp.  102  seqq.). 


388  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

which  his  lower  reasoning  denied.  His  witness  even  extended  to 
the  affirmation  of  the  theism  taught  by  Christian  mystics,  of  the 
soul,  of  eternity,  of  angels  and  of  miracles,  although  this  witness 
was  so  strangely  unconscious.  That  is  for  us  his  supreme  value— 
the  testimonium  animce  naturaliter  Christiance — given  with  a clear- 
ness and  intensity  of  conviction  never  exceeded  by  any  other  non- 
Christian  mystic.  Nor  was  he  left  to  the  end  in  his  intellectual 
ignorance.  As  he  lay  on  his  bed  of  sickness,  nigh  to  death, 
Christian  faith  was  infused  into  him.  This  faith  was  indeed  very 
imperfect,  being  limted  by  an  ultra-Protestant  individualism 
which  rejected  all  church  membership.  Nevertheless  it  was  the 
knowledge  of  God,  clear  and  certain  now  to  the  discursive  reason, 
as  well  as  to  the  intuition  of  the  centre,  and  thus  accepted  by  the 
whole  man.  It  was,  moreover,  the  knowledge  of  Jesus.  For  all 
the  truth  and  beauty  of  non-Christian  mysticism,  the  Christian 
reader  may  well  feel  what  St  Bernard  felt  when  he  said  : “ Si 
scribas,  non  sapit  mihi  nisi  legero  ibi  Jesum.  Si  disputes,  aut  con- 
fer as,  non  sapit  mihi  nisi  sonuerit  ibi  Jesus ” (“Naught  that  is 
written  hath  savour  to  me,  but  I may  read  therein  Jesus.  No 
disputation,  no  conference  hath  savour  to  me,  except  I may  hear 
therein  Jesus  ”)  (serm.  in  Cant.  15).  To  all  such  it  must  be  a 
joy  to  know  that  when  Jefferies  came  to  die  that  Divine  name 
uttered  in  fervent  prayer  was  among  the  last  words  to  pass  his 
lips.  Having  used  so  well  the  light  and  gift  of  his  mystical  know- 
ledge of  God,  he  was  given  the  one  great  gift  yet  lacking,  the 
knowledge  of  God  Incarnate,  into  Whose  membership  he  had 
indeed  been  baptized,  but  Whom  he  had  never  truly  known.  His 
faith  1 as  a Gentile  was  far  beyond  that  of  the  majority  in  the 
Christian  Israel.  Therefore,  like  the  centurion  of  old,  he  found 
Christ,  and  in  Christ  the  healing  of  his  lower  nature,  the  servant 
of  the  already  united  centre,  and  his  translation  from  the  obscure 
knowledge  of  God  on  earth,  for  him  in  his  intellectual  infidelity, 
doubly  obscure,  to  the  clear  vision  of  Heaven,  wherein  he  drinks 
at  its  source  that  fulness  of  unlimited  soul-life  for  which  he  thirsted 
so  deeply.  “ Euge  serve  bone  el  fidelis  quia  in  pauca  fuisti  fidelis 
supra  midta  es  constitutus,  intrasti  in  gaudium  Domini  tui  ” (“Well 
done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant,  because  thou  hast  been 
faithful  in  a few  things  thou  art  set  over  many,  thou  hast  entered 
into  the  joy  of  Thy  Lord  ”). 

1 1 mean  the  faith  of  his  mystical  intuition. 


CHAPTER  XV 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET 

All  is  done,  every  haunting  form  is  gone.  . . . Far,  far  away, 
like  a steely  light  upon  the  horizon,  a watery  plain,  a line  of  trembling 
ivaves,  the  sea.  The  river  runs  down  to  it.  The  sea  seems  to  run 
up  to  the  river.  She  fires  him.  He  desires  her.  He  must  lose 
himself  in  her. 

Jean  Christophe, 

English  trs.,  vol.  i.,  p.  90. 


Art  must  ever  remain  the  most  adequate  expression  of 
spiritual  intuition  and  experience.  The  quasi-scientific  treat- 
ment in  The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  and  The  Dark  Night  broke 
down  of  necessity,  and  passed  over  into  the  poetry  of  the  Spiritual 
Canticle  and  The  Living  Flame  of  Love.  Yet  even  the  two  former 
treatises  were  comments  on  a poem,  and  the  poem  contained  far 
more  than  the  connnent  could  ever  express.  St  John  has  left  us 
some  twenty-three  poems  inclusive  of  the  three  whose  commentary 
is  his  prose  works.  They  are  of  very  unequal  value  ; there  is  but 
one  positively  bad  and  the  best  is  of  supreme  worth.  Like  all 
poetry,  the  poetry  of  St  John  is  truly  accessible  to  those  alone 
who  can  read  it  in  the  original. 

Most  of  the  poems  are  based  directly  or  indirectly  on  nuptial 
imagery,  on  the  mutual  love  of  Bride  and  Bridegroom.  This 
imagery  was  fundamental  for  St  John,  different  in  this  from 
Mother  Cecilia,  who,  like  St  Catherine  of  Genoa  (see  Baron  von 
Hiigel,  Mystical  Element ),  prefers  a more  impersonal  imagery.  A 
lengthy  presentation  of  the  Incamational  economy  which  occupies 
a consecutive  series  of  nine  poems,  called  Romances,  is  based  on 
the  nuptial  union  between  the  Word  and  the  elect,  His  bride. 
His  longest  poem  is  a paraphrase  of  the  Canticle  of  Canticles,  and 
the  finest  of  all  his  poems,  The  Dark  Night,  describes  the  meet- 
ing and  embrace  of  the  lover  and  the  beloved.  Other  leading 
ideas  are  transcendence  of  clear  knowledge,  dissatisfaction  with 
creatures  and  longing  for  death.  The  fundamental  principles  of  St 

389 


390  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

John’s  mystical  teaching  are  summed  up,  often  with  great  force, 
concision  and  clarity.  The  fifth  poem,1  entitled  An  Ecstasy  of 
Contemplation,  is  perhaps  the  best  example  of  this.  It  is  simply 
St  John’s  doctrine  of  transcendence  and  the  nature  of  mystical 
intuition  expressed  in  beautiful  verse.  There  is  little  imagery 
and  none  that  is  not  explained  in  the  poem  itself.  In  other  poems, 
such  as  that  of  The  Dark  Night,  all  is  unexplained  imagery.  These 
latter  are  poems  in  a far  higher  sense  than  the  former,  since  art, 
of  which  poetry  is  a species,  consists  essentially  in  the  embodi- 
ment of  spiritual  intuition  in  material  images.*  Sometimes  St 
John  falls  into  the  besetting  sin  of  allegorical  literature,  the 
formation  of  a grotesque  image  in  the  interest  of  the  allegory. 
An  instance  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  twelfth  stanza  of  the 
Spiritual  Canticle.  This  reads  : 

0 crystal  well  1 

Oh,  that  on  thy  silvered  surface 

Thou  wouldst  mirror  forth  at  once 

Those  eyes  desired 

That  are  outlined  in  my  heart. 

To  the  careless  reader  this  stanza  would  suggest  a well  of  clear  and 
still  water  bathed  in  sunlight,  whose  surface  shone  like  a sheet  of 
bright  silver,  and  in  that  silver-bright  sheet  the  appearance  of  the 
face  of  the  Beloved,  as  faces  are  reflected  in  clear  water  and  in  a 
shining  surface  of  silver.  Such  an  image  would  be  altogether 
beautiful  and  consistent.  When,  however,  the  prose  explanation 
is  read,  it  is  realised  that  the  surface  is  not  called  silver  or  silvery, 
but  silver-plated.  The  well  is  the  substance  of  the  faith  and  the 
silver-plated  surface  the  definitions  and  dogmas  beneath  which 
that  substance  is  hidden — like  gold  plated  over  with  silver.  But 
it  is  evident  that  the  two  images  of  a clear  well  and  of  metal  plating 
do  not  cohere  and  that  their  union  is  grotesque.  The  image  is 
sacrificed  to  the  allegory.  Again,  in  the  ninth  poem  the  principal 
image  is  that  of  a fountain,  the  Divine  Being.  But  the  three 
Persons  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  are  said  to  dwell  in  one  living 
water.  Surely  the  image  of  the  joint  habitation  of  one  place 
by  three  persons  does  not  consist  with  the  image  of  a fountain. 
Worse  is  the  concluding  stanza,  where  St  John  says  that — 

The  living  fountain  for  which  I long 

1 see  in  this  Bread  of  Life. 


1 1 number  the  poems  in  accordance  with  the  Edicion  Critica. 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET  391 

The  image  of  a fountain  springing  from  a piece  of  bread  is  surely 
grotesque  in  the  extreme.  In  a poem  based  on  the  imagery  of  a 
fountain  of  water  the  inconsistent  imagery  of  bread  should  have 
been  avoided. 

Moreover,  from  the  purely  aesthetic  point  of  view,  it  is  a pity 
that  the  impassioned  melodies  of  the  Canticle  should  end  on  a note 
of  discordant  flatness : 

None  saw  it, 

Neither  did  Aminadab  appear. 

The  siege  was  intermitted 
And  the  cavalry  dismounted 
At  the  sight  of  the  waters. 

The  artistic  error  is  all  the  worse  because  the  preceding  verse  is 
most  beautiful  and  would  have  formed  a worthy  ending.  More- 
over, the  original  ends  with  a far  more  beautiful  image  : “ Flee, 
my  beloved,  and  be  like  the  roe  and  the  young  hart  on  the  moun- 
tains of  spices.”  Here  also  the  allegorical  interest  has  over- 
powered the  artistic.  We  must  remember,  however,  that  even 
Dante  did  not  avoid  this  trap  in  the  allegory  which  concludes  the 
Purgatorio,  for  we  find  Prudence  figuring  in  the  mystic  procession 
with  three  eyes,  although  a three-eyed  maiden  would  be  a monster. 
Sometimes  the  poetry  is  injured  by  excess  of  fidelity  to  a para- 
phrased original.  Thus  in  the  twentieth  poem  a mystical  para- 
phrase of  the  exilic  psalm,  Super  Flumina  Babylonis,  St  John  has 
felt  himself  obliged  to  introduce  that  final  verse  of  fierce  wrath 
against  Babylon  : “ Blessed  shall  he  be  that  taketh  thy  children 
and  dasheth  them  against  the  stones.”  In  order  to  retain  this 
verse  he  has  to  end  his  poem  with  the  following  stanza  : — 

* He  will  me,  thy  weeping  captive, 

With  thy  little  children  take, 

And  to  Christ  the  Rock  will  bring  them. 

I have  left  thee  for  His  sake. 

The  feebleness  and  formlessness  of  this  verse  are  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  energy  of  the  original  ending.  Moreover,  the 
verse  is  suggestive  of  the  final  conversion  of  all  worldlings,  a 
doctrine  far  indeed  from  the  mind  of  St  John.  How  much  better 
art  it  would  have  been  to  omit  a verse  which  did  not  harmonise 
with  the  interpretation  of  the  psalm  adopted  in  this  poem. 

These  instances  of  disharmony  between  form  and  matter, 


392  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

between  expression  and  idea,  are,  after  all,  rare.  In  general  the 
poetry  is  no  unworthy  embodiment  of  the  doctrine  it  conveys. 

I am  not  competent  to  discuss  the  literary  form  of  the  poems 
since  I am  unacquainted  with  Spanish  literature.  It  seems  to  me 
clear,  graceful  and  musical.  St  John  was  a careful  student  of 
artistic  form  and  used  the  best  models.  The  Living  Flame  is,  he 
tells  us,  composed  in  the  manner  of  Boscan.  A favourite  device  is 
the  repetition,  exact  or  almost  exact,  of  the  same  line  at  the  end  of 
each  verse.  This  line  is  the  key-line  of  the  poem  in  which  the  main 
thought  is  expressed.  It  occurs  in  six  poems.  The  respective 
key-lines  of  these  poems  are  “ muero  porque  no  maero  ” (“  I die  be- 
cause I am  not  dead  ”) ; “ toda  sciencia  transcendiendo  ” (“  all  know- 
ledge transcending  ”) ; “ que  le  di  a la  caza  alcance  ” (“  that  brought 
the  prey  within  my  grasp  ”)  ; “ un  no  se  que,  que  se  halla  per  Ven- 
tura ” (“a  something,  I know  not  what,  that  has  happily  been 
found  ”) ; “ aunque  es  de  noche  ” (“  though  it  be  night  ”) ; and  “ el 
pecho  del  amor  muy  lastimado  ” (“  his  breast  cruelly  torn  by  love  ”). 

The  series  of  Romances  which  set  forth  the  economy  of 
the  Incarnation,  as  a theological  exposition  in  metre,  challenges 
comparison  with  Aquinas’  Lauda  Sion.  The  comparison  does 
not  result  to  the  advantage  of  the  Romances.  They  lack  that 
fire  of  ecstatic  jubilation  which  inflames  the  dogmatic  state- 
ments of  the  eucharistic  sequence,  the  same  fire  that  burns  in  the 
rhapsody  which  opens  Father  Faber’s  Treatise  on  the  Blessed 
Sacrament.  Their  very  metre  is  monotonous,  especially  when 
prolonged  through  the  entire  series  of  poems.  But,  indeed,  even 
the  Lauda  Sion  could  not  have  been  thus  prolonged.  Its  flame 
would  have  been  stifled  under  the  mass  of  fuel.  Nevertheless 
these  Romances  possess  some  beauty,  although  of  a very  placid, 
uninspired  tyjDe. 

Then  we  have  a number  of  poems  of  varied  merit,  expressive 
of  particular  aspects  of  the  mystical  wray — diverse  emotions  of  the 
soul’s  love.  Among  these  are  the  twenty-second  poem,  Si  de  mi 
Baja  Suerte  (the  longing  for  a consuming  love  that  will  penetrate 
the  Divine  Heart),  and  the  preceding  poem,  Bel  Aqua  de  la  Vida 
(the  thirst  of  the  soul  for  the  full  fruition  of  heaven).  Interpolated 
in  this  is  a long  passage  of  more  than  doubtful  authenticity — a 
description  of  heaven  in  the  style  of  Bernard  of  Cluny’s  Horn 
Novissima  and  St  Peter  Damian’s  Ad  Perennis  Vitce  Fontem.  It 
is  quite  well  done,  but  its  dwelling  on  material  images,  such  as 
pearls,  is  somewhat  unjohannine.  We  remember  the  passage  in 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET  393 

The  Ascent  of  Mount  Carmel  where  St  John  says  that  a mountain 
of  gold  or  pearls  contains,  after  all,  no  more  than  the  single  pieces 
of  gold  and  the  single  pearls  of  which  we  have  actual  experience. 
Akin  to  these  are  the  seventh  poem,  of  detachment  from  creatures, 
and  the  sixth  of  the  attainment  of  God.  Neither  is  specially  note- 
worthy. The  fourth  poem  of  longing  for  death,  with  its  refrain, 
“ I die  because  I am  not  dead,”  is  a noble  expression  of  this  feeling. 
We  may  note  in  particular  the  image  of  the  fish  out  of  water, 
found,  of  course,  elsewhere,  as  representative  of  the  mystic  in  this 
life.  Very  beautiful  is  the  poem  that  describes  the  satisfaction  of 
the  soul  in  its  experience  of  the  unknowable  Godhead  in  mystical 
intuition,  “ something,  I know  not  what,  that  happily  is  found.” 
Best  of  this  group  is  the  Ecstasy  of  Contemplation.  I do  not  know 
that  its  poetical  achievement  is  better  than  that  of  the  others. 
Its  power  lies  in  its  clear  expression  of  the  mystical  knowledge  that 
is  nevertheless  ignorance.  This  entire  group  of  poems,  like  the 
Romances,  falls  short  in  being  a direct  exposition  of  spiritual  truth 
rather  than  its  expression  through  material  imagery.  It  is  only 
half  poetry,  therefore  far  less  poetical,  than  much  of  the  prose- 
writing.  In  the  ninth  poem,  the  poem  on  the  fountain  that  flows 
by  night,  we  have  more  imagery  and  therefore  truer  art,  and  more 
suggestion  of  an  infinity  beyond  the  letter.  In  the  more  or  less 
disembodied  poetry  hitherto  discussed  there  is  a false  suggestion 
that  the  poem,  since  it  directly  expresses  the  spiritual  meaning,  is 
adequate  to  that  meaning.  In  the  embodied  poetry  we  know 
that  we  are  dealing  with  symbols  and  sacraments  of  the  unlimited 
and  inexpressible.  Only  in  this  fountain  poem  the  embodiment 
is  not  complete  and  the  underlying  meaning  breaks  through  dis- 
concertingly. In  the  tenth  poem,  on  the  other  hand,  the  embodi- 
ment is  entire.  Nevertheless  this  poem  is  the  most  unsuccessful 
of  all,  because  that  embodiment  is  hopelessly  inadequate.  Not 
that  the  embodiment  is  ugly  ; it  is,  on  the  contrary,  quite  pretty. 
But  it  is  only  pretty,  and  prettiness  is  ugly  in  religious  poetry. 
The  poem  allegorises  the  love  of  Christ  for  the  human  soul  by 
the  figure  of  a shepherd  mourning  for  his  shepherdess  who  has 
slighted  and  forgotten  him.  The  effect  is  a pastoral,  resembling 
closely  a Watteau  group,  or  those  Chelsea  figures  that  adorn  the 
cupboards  and  mantelpieces  of  collectors  of  old  china.  But  the 
artificial  loves  of  Chelsea  shepherds  and  shepherdesses  can  never 
image  the  love  of  Christ  for  the  soul.  It  is  strange  indeed  that  the 
stern  mystic  of  Carmel  could  ever  have  written  this  poem.  The 


394  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Edicion  Critica  unhesitatingly  accepts  its  authenticity,  so  I 
suppose  we  can  but  remember  that  Homer  nods  at  times. 
Certainly  if  St  John  wrote  these  verses  there  is  no  reason  to  deny 
his  authorship  of  The  Thorns  of  the  Spirit,  where  a solid  substance 
of  mystical  doctrine  is  tricked  out  with  similar  prettiness  of 
playful  endearment.  Here  the  first  word  strikes  the  wrong  note 
— Un  pastorcico — a little  shepherd  ! Only  in  the  final  verse  we 
are  surprised  by  the  sudden  emergence  of  a deeper  tone  when  the 
Crucifixion  is  spoken  of — and  we  are  jarred  by  the  contrast,  as 
by  the  sight  of  a crucifix  in  an  elegant  drawing-room. 

There  remain  now  for  discussion  but  three  poems  of  undoubted 
authenticity,  but  these  three  exceed  in  value  all  the  others  together. 
They  are  the  three  whose  comment  constitutes  the  four  great 
prose  works  of  St  John.  All  three  are  embodied  and  they  are 
poetry  and  art  in  the  fullest  and  most  complete  sense.  The 
Living  Flame  suffers,  I think,  by  comparison  with  its  commentary, 
which  is  even  more  poetical  than  the  poem  itself.  When  com- 
pared with  the  purple  passages  so  frequent  in  this  prose  poem,  the 
verses,  beautiful  though  they  are  in  themselves,  must  appear 
somewhat  meagre.  The  Canticle  is  far  finer  poetry,  though  we 
must,  of  course,  make  a large  deduction  from  its  merit  as  largely 
due  to  the  beauty  of  its  inspired  original.  Nevertheless  it  is  not 
slavish  imitation,  no  Tate  and  Brady  paraphrase.  It  is,  on  the 
contrary,  full  of  original  touches  of  exquisite  beauty.  Mr  Lewis 
has  given  us  two  versions — one  in  prose,  the  other  in  verse. 
Personally  I vastly  prefer  the  former — it  is  so  much  simpler  and 
more  faithful  to  the  original.  Of  all  its  forty  verses  the  two  that 
have  impressed  themselves  most  deeply  on  my  imagination  are 
the  following : — 

My  Beloved  is  the  mountains, 

The  solitary  wooded  valleys, 

The  strange  islands, 

The  roaring  torrents, 

The  whisper  of  the  amorous  gales, 

The  tranquil  night 

At  the  approaches  of  the  dawn, 

The  silent  music, 

The  murmuring  solitude, 

The  supper  which  revives  and  enkindles  love. 

Do  not  say  that  the  murmuring  solitude  is  unreal,  a perverted 
symbolism.  If  you  think  that  you  can  never  have  been  alone  in 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET  395 

the  depths  of  a pine  wood  on  a summer  day.  There  is  perfect 
solitude,  undisturbed  stillness,  and  yet  the  air  is  as  full  of  murmur- 
ous sound  as  it  is  of  heat  and  light.  So  is  it  with  the  mystic  when 
alone  with  God.  His  detachment  and  his  peace  are  perfect,  and 
yet  he  is  plunged  into  an  infinite  activity.  For  the  silent  music, 
think  of  Shelley’s  line  : “Music,  when  soft  voices  die,  vibrates  in 
the  memory.”  The  silence  that  follows  noble  music  is  the  suprem- 
est  music,  just  as  the  negative  intuition  that  follows  the  positive 
teaching  of  dogma  is  the  truest  and  most  positive  knowledge  of 
God.  The  rest  of  these  two  stanzas  possesses  this  exquisite 
delicacy  of  suggestion  at  an  almost  equal  level.  In  all  this,  too, 
St  John  is  most  himself ; there  is  nothing  in  it  that  is  borrowed 
from  the  Song  of  Songs.  But  indeed  this  is  among  St  John’s 
finest  poetic  effects,  the  infinite  suggestion  of  silence  and  its 
equivalent,  the  peace  of  soft  and  subtle  sound.  Nor  could  any 
poet  express  better  a similar  suggestion,  the  mystical  signifi- 
cance of  night  and  of  that  first  spring  of  dawn  when  the  night 
is  most  felt.  Nietzsche  approaches  him  in  his  midnight  conclu- 
sion to  Zarathustra,  but  he  had  to  introduce  the  loud  sound  of  a 
clock.  This  thought  of  night  has  led  me  to  St  John’s  masterpiece 
— his  one  poem  that  is  absolutely  perfect,  without  flaw,  the  poem 
of  The  Dark  Night.  I cannot  refrain  from  transcribing  it  at  length, 
and  with  it  the  Spanish  original,  that  even  those  who  cannot 
understand  the  Spanish  may  not  miss  its  music — an  indispensable 
part  of  the  effect : 

CAN  CIONES 

1.  En  una  noche  oscura 

Con  ansias  en  amores  inflamada, 

Oh  dichosa  ventura  I 
Sail'  sin  ser  notada, 

Estando  ya  mi  casa  sosegada. 

2.  A oscuras,  y segura 

Por  la  secreta  escala  disfrazada, 

Oh  dichosa  ventura  1 
A oscuras,  en  celada, 

Estando  ya  mi  casa  sosegada. 

3.  En  la  Noche  dichosa 

En  secreto,  que  nadie  me  veia, 

Ni  yo  miraba  cosa, 

Sin  otra  luz,  ni  guid, 

Sino  la  que  en  el'corazdn  ardia. 


396 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

4.  Aquesta  me  guiaba 

Mas  cierto  que  la  luz  de  medio  dia, 

A donde  me  esperaba, 

Quien  yo  bien  me  sabia, 

En  parte,  donde  nadie  parecia. 

5.  Oh  Noche,  que  guiaste, 

Oh  Noche  amable  mas  que  el  alborada  ; 

Oh  Noche,  que  juntaste 
Amado  con  amada, 

Amada  en  el  Amado  transformada  ! 

6.  En  mi  pecho  florido, 

Que  entero  para  el  solo  se  guardaba, 

AIK  quedo  dormido, 

Y yo  le  regalaba, 

Y el  ventalle  de  cedros  aire  daba. 

7.  El  aire  de  el  almena, 

Cuando  ya  sus  cabellos  esparcia, 

Con  su  mano  serena 
En  mi  cuello  heria, 

Y todos  mis  sentidos  suspendia. 

8.  Quedeme,  y olvideme, 

El  rostro  recline  sobre  el  Amado, 

Ces6  todo,  y dejeme, 

Dejando  mi  cuidado 
Entre  las  azucenas  olvidado. 

STANZAS 

1 

In  a dark  night, 

With  anxious  love  inflamed, 

O happy  lot ! 

Forth  unobserved  I went, 

My  house  being  now  at  rest. 

2 

In  darkness  and  in  safety, 

By  the  secret  ladder,  disguised, 

O happy  lot ! 

In  darkness  and  concealment, 

My  house  being  now  at  rest. 

3 

In  that  happy  night, 

In  secret,  seen  of  none, 

Seeing  naught  myself, 

Without  other  light  or  guide 

Save  that  which  in  my  heart  was  burning. 


397 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET 

4 

That  light  guided  me 
More  surely  than  the  noonday  sun 
To  the  place  where  He  was  waiting  for  me 
Whom  I knew  well, 

And  where  none  appeared. 

5 

O guiding  night ; 

O night  more  lovely  than  the  dawn  ; 

0 night  that  hast  united 
The  lover  with  His  beloved, 

And  changed  her  into  her  love. 

6 

On  my  flowery  bosom, 

Kept  whole  for  Him  alone, 

There  he  reposed  and  slept ; 

And  I caressed  Him,  and  the  waving 
Of  the  cedars  fanned  Him. 

7 

As  His  hair  floated  in  the  breeze 
That  blew  from  the  turret, 

He  struck  me  on  the  neck 
With  his  gentle  hand, 

And  all  sensation  left  me. 

8 

1 continued  in  oblivion  lost, 

My  head  was  resting  on  my  love  ; 

Lost  to  all  things  and  myself, 

And,  amid  the  lilies  forgotten, 

Threw  all  my  cares  away. 

This  poem  beggars  all  comment.  How  shall  I dare  to  appraise 
a beauty  that  is  so  inexpressible  ? All  I can  say  seems  profana- 
tion. The  mystical  experience  that  is  its  subject  matter  has 
woven  for  itself  a garment  of  the  most  subtle  and  exquisite  loveli- 
ness. The  external  image  is  a complete  picture,  and  is  as  adequate 
as  any  symbol  that  artistic  intuition  could  devise.  Not  once  does 
the  spiritual  significance  mar  the  consistent  harmony  of  the 
picture  that  embodies  it.  Not  once  by  the  introduction  of  a 
discordant  figure  does  the  external  imagery  fail  to  suggest  the 
spiritual  reality  behind  it.  The  reader  may  perhaps  object  to 
the  striking  of  the  Bride  in  verse  seven.  But  the  mention  of  the 


398  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

gentle  hand  tells  us  that  the  blow  is  not  a brutal  and  painful 
stunning,  but  a supreme  touch  of  powerful  love  that  suspends  the 
senses  of  the  Bride  in  a rapture  of  bliss — the  climax  of  the  embrace. 
Nor  does  the  transformation  of  the  Beloved  into  the  lover  really 
pass  beyond  the  symbol.  As  part  of  the  symbol  it  is  the  close 
union  of  human  love  in  which  two  hearts  may  be  said  to  become 
one.  The  picture  is  consistent  throughout,  perfect  and  flawless. 
And  what  a picture  it  is  ! It  is  a warm  summer  night  of  the 
south  fragrant  with  the  rich  scent  of  the  cedar-wood  and  the  lilies. 
The  vast  boughs  of  the  cedars  sway  through  the  gloom  as 
the  breeze  moves  gently  among  them.  Beneath  all  is  black- 
ness save  for  the  white  gleam  of  the  lilies.  Through  the  trees 
looms  the  turret  of  some  fantastic  Oriental  building — reminiscent 
of  the  Alhambra  or  the  Alcazar  of  Seville.  (Surely  the  very  word 
“ almena  ” is  of  Moorish  origin. ) But  this  is  but  the  external  setting, 
an  atmosphere  plenteously  charged  with  suggestion  of  passionate 
love  in  which  the  meeting  and  embrace  of  the  lovers  is  placed. 
There  is  the  Bride,  who  has  escaped  the  would-be  hindrance  of  her 
household  by  the  secret  ladder  and  in  disguise,  while  all  are  asleep. 
There  is  He  who  awaits  in  the  darkness,  the  lover  undescribed, 
because  He  is  indescribable,  Himself.  The  transformation  follows, 
the  embrace  and  the  sleep  of  the  Divine  Lover.  It  is  impossible 
to  say  these  things  in  other  words.  Only  the  words  of  the  saint 
are  able  to  unite  so  intimately  the  earthly  type  and  the  spiritual 
antitype,  to  fuse  so  completely  intensest  passion  with  perfect 
purity.1  For  the  power  and  the  life  of  the  poem  are  a white 
heat  of  spiritual  passion.  That  heat  moulds  the  imagery  and 
burns  through  it.  Every  detail  is  aglow  with  it,  even  the  turret, 
the  cedars  and  the  lilies.  In  every  supreme  work  of  art  the 
feeling  of  the  artist  thus  moulds  and  penetrates  the  material 
embodiment,  as  life  moulds  and  penetrates  every  limb  of  the 
human  body.  I have  designedly  termed  this  spiritual  passion 
white  heat  in  contradistinction  to  the  red  heat  of  earthly  and 
physical  passion.  The  former  heat  is  so  much  more  intense  than 
the  latter.  To  realise  this  we  have  but  to  compare  the  master- 
pieces of  earthly  passion  with  this  poem.  Their  fire,  more  expan- 
sive and  more  brilliant,  pales  before  the  concentrated  intensity 
of  this  spiritual  flame.  So  far  as  my  acquaintance  with  art  and 

1 Be  it  remembered  that  the  purity  of  this  supernatural  passion  has  been  a 
purity  obtained  and  only  obtainable  by  a total  mortification  and  relentless 
crucifixion  of  the  flesh  and  its  desires. 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET  399 

literature  extends,  I know  of  nothing  nearer  to  this  Dark  Night 
than  the  passage  in  praise  of  night  in  the  second  act  of  Wagner’s 
Tristan  und  Isolde.*  The  fire  there  does  indeed  burn  almost  as 
fiercely  as  in  this  poem.  But  it  does  so  precisely  because  it  trans- 
cends the  sensuous  love,  that  forms  its  immediate  fuel.  It  tends 
to  pass  over  into  the  spiritual  passion  of  an  infinite  love.  It 
cannot,  however,  free  itself  from  the  idolatry  of  its  finite  object, 
from  the  bondage  of  its  sensuous  conditions.  Hence  it  ends  in 
tragedy,  a tragedy  not  really  due  to  the  external  circumstances, 
but  inherent  in  its  very  nature.  In  the  poem  before  us  the 
passion  flames  forth  unchecked  by  any  limitation  because  it  is 
perfectly  pure — and  purity  is  essentially  freedom  from  limits. 
But  perhaps  some  among  my  readers,  I hope  but  a few,  may  be 
shocked  at  the  notion  that  there  is  any  passion  in  religion.  For 
good  people  differ  from  saints  and  sinners  alike  in  this,  that 
they  are  afraid  of  passion,  and  therefore  afraid  of  life.  They 
charge  to  the  account  of  passion  and  life,  for  passion  is  but  life 
in  its  intensest  vigour,  the  limits  that  distort  and  sully  it  in  fallen 
sense-bound  humanity.  Hence  they  take  refuge  from  both  in  a 
cold  and  uninspired  moralism  and  in  an  artificially  closed  circle 
of  thought  and  practice.  The  result  is  that  the  stream  of  life 
leaves  them  behind  in  their  backwaters  as  it  sweeps  onwards,  a 
turbid,  muddy,  often  destructive,  but  always  mighty,  force.  I 
do  not  blame  this  attitude  of  the  good.  It  is  often  their  only 
safeguard.  They  lack  the  capacity  to  purify  and  spiritualise 
passion,  and  therefore  must  avoid  it  entirely.  Only  let  not  such 
expect  to  help  and  save  those  who  will  and  must  live  with  the 
fulness  of  life,  who  must  love  passionately. 

Unlike  these  good  people,  the  saints  have  not  fled  from  passion. 
They  have  transformed  it  and  raised  it  to  a higher  level  where  it 
is  freed  from  the  limitations  of  sense.  Some  have  done  this  from 
the  outset,  and  have  never,  or  little,  felt  the  appeal  of  earthly  and 
sense-bound  loves.  Others,  like  St  Augustine,  have  learnt  by 
experience  the  emptiness  and  unreality  of  the  limited,  and  so  have 
come  to  find  rest  in  an  infinite  love  that  is  the  intense  passion  of 
pure  spirit.1  If  the  saints  have  withdrawn  from  life,  it  has  been 
to  find  a fuller  life  from  which  the  limits  of  that  lower  life  would 

1 I know  there  are  philosophers  who,  like  Abbot  Vonier,  would  limit  emotion 
and  passion  to  the  sense-conditioned  activities  of  the  soul.  I regard  this  as  a 
profound  error — an  error  which  logically  involves  the  substitution,  as  the  ideal, 
of  the  apathy  of  the  stoic  sage,  for  the  love  of  the  Sacred  Heart. 


400  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

have  debarred  them.  If  they  have  withdrawn  from  love,  it  has 
been  to  find  a mightier  love,  from  which  the  limits  of  that  lower 
love  would  have  debarred  them.  But  they  have  never  shunned 
life  and  love  in  themselves.  Never  have  they  shunned  passion 
that  is  the  fulness  of  both.  And  after  all  it  is  self-evident  that 
the  spiritual  passion  of  this  Dark  Night  exceeds  the  passion  of 
earthly  love,  as  the  fire  of  the  sun  the  fire  of  a candle.  It  is 
indeed  true  that  even  earthly  passion,  when  deepest  and  most 
intense,  tends  to  transcend  its  physical  and  limited  occasion  and 
ground.  The  passion  of  Wagner’s  Tristan  is  not  to  be  confused 
with  that  of  a Fyodor  Karamazoff.1  The  common  element  of 
sense  is  in  the  higher  passion  merely  a limit  which  is  the  source 
of  idolatry,  discord,  illusion  and  tragedy.  The  final  message  of 
Ibsen — the  symbolic  drama — When  We  Bead  Awaken — is  that 
life  is  love  passionate  and  intense — and  that  only  in  such  love 
is  reality  touched — the  rest  is  deception,  bondage  and  spiritual 
death.  Moreover,  such  love  draws  upwards  ever  upwards  to  the 
mountain  peaks — that  also  Ibsen  knew.  But  he  cannot  in  his 
unbelief  escape  the  limits  of  the  sensible  and  the  finite.  The 
snowy  sun  lit  pinnacle  remains  an  unattainable  aspiration.  The 
pagan  artist  cannot  enter  or  lead  us  into  the  promised  land  that 
his  dying  eyes  beheld  from  his  Pisgah  summit.  Only  with  the 
mystic  is  passion,  love  or  life,  call  it  which  you  will,  free  to  attain 
its  unlimited  satisfaction,  the  sole  satisfaction  possible.  I seem 
perhaps  to  have  wandered  far  from  the  poem  before  us — I have 
in  reality  declared  its  essence.  It  is  this  passion  that  is  pure  love, 
this  love  that  is  pure  passion,  this  purity  that  is  passionate  love, 
this  pure  passion  and  love  that  is  fulness  of  life.  The  restraint  of 
the  verses  is  not  the  externally  imposed  restraint  which  was  but 
the  means  of  destroying  limits.  It  is  the  unity  of  entire  concen- 
tration. The  passion  reaches  its  height  in  the  cry  of  the  fifth 
stanza,  “ O noche,  che  guiaste,”  a stanza  whose  very  language 
recalls  that  of  the  night  passage  in  Tristan.  Thenceforward  the 
fulfilled  passion  passes  into  the  peace  of  perfect  satisfaction — 
when  its  energy  is  no  longer  desire  but  possession. 

A somewhat  similar  transition  from  desire  to  satisfaction  is 
also  found  in  our  Wagner  passage.  There,  however,  it  soon  passes 
on  the  intrusion  of  the  lower  earthly  element  of  human  love,  the 
limit  of  its  limited  object.  It  is  indeed  finally  restored.2  But 

1 The  sensualist.in  Dostoievsky’s  novel,  The  Brothers  Karamazoff. 

2 In  Isolde’s  death  ecstasy. 


ST  JOHN  THE  POET  401 

this  restoration  is  the  effect  of  a transcendance  of  limits  un- 
warranted by  the  sense-conditioned  and  therefore  tragic  passion 
of  Tristan  and  Isolde  and  arising  out  of  the  poet’s  intuition  of  the 
Infinite,  the  supreme  intuition  of  his  art,  bearing  unconscious 
witness  to  the  truth  of  mystical  experience.  In  this  poem  of 
St  John  the  peace  of  satisfied  love  is  not  as  with  Wagner  a vision 
of  what  should  or  might  be,  but  a present  reality.  Once  attained, 
it  endures  for  ever,  an  eternal  sleep  of  oblivion  in  respect  of  the 
limited  death-in-life  of  creatures,  an  eternal  awakening  in  the 
unlimited  fulness  of  the  life  of  God.  This  fulness  of  passionate 
love  that  is  infinite  satisfaction  is  peace  and  slumber  from  the 
unfulfilled  desire  which  renders  earthly  passion  so  destructive  and 
spiritual  passion  a purgatorial  anguish.  The  raging  torrent  has 
flowed  out  into  the  calm  depths  of  the  ocean.  It  was  but  the 
narrowness  of  its  bed  that  made  the  water  so  rough.  Now  that 
its  force  has  been  set  free  it  is  perceived  no  longer.  Even  so 
does  the  passion  that  beats  throughout  this  poem  pass  into  the 
perfect  peace  of  that  mystic  marriage  and  sleep  among  the  lilies, 
the  peace  of  perfect  attainment,  of  entire  fruition.  In  this 
marriage  are  fulfilled  all  knowledge  and  all  art,  all  striving,  all 
desire,  all  love  and  all  life.  This  marriage  union  is  the  limitless 
Being  of  God  eternally  filling  the  eternal  emptiness  of  the  soul. 
It  is  harmony  without  discord,  freedom  without  bond,  reality 
without  illusion,  satisfaction  without  striving,  love  without 
longing,  yes  without  no,  and  life  without  death. 


EPILOGUE 


In  the  Unlimited  all  things  are  ours,  ours  in  potency  even  now, 
for  even  now  the  Unlimited  Godhead  is  ours  by  grace.  Therefore 
in  all  things  and  through  all  things  He  may  be  found  and  praised 
by  the  Christian  soul.  To  Thee,  then,  O God,  do  we  turn  and 
would  gather  together  all  to  offer  in  praise  to  Thee. 

Through  the  vast  expanse  of  space,  the  bounds  whereof  no 
human  eye  or  mind  can  reach,  the  image  of  Thine  infinity — 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  countless  suns  of  fire  that  burn  therein,  giving 
light  and  warmth  to  hidden  worlds,  the  homes  of  other  children 
of  Thine  to  us  unknown,  other  sheep  not  of  our  fold,  praise  be 
to  Thee,  O Lord.1 

Through  the  long  preparation  of  man,  and  the  earth  his  dwelling 
through  seons  of  evolution  and  creation,  the  image  of  Thy  Patience, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  sapphire  dome  of  the  sky,  and  through  its 
tapestries  of  cloud,  snow-white  or  dyed  with  purple  and  flame, 
the  image  of  Thy  Heavenly  dwelling-place,  even  Thy  Godhead 
inaccessibly  exalted,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  sun  enthroned  therein,  giver  of  light  and  of  heat, 
of  strength  and  of  joy,  whose  rising  is  our  hope,  whose  setting  is 
our  consolation,  the  image  of  Thine  Incarnate  love,  praise  be  to 
Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  moon  whose  light  is  mystery  and  tender  grace, 
image  of  Thy  Mother,  and  through  the  stars  far-burning  in  the 
abyss  of  night  and  space,  that  lift  our  thoughts  to  Thee,  emblems 
of  Thy  saints,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  earth,  our  school,  and  our  hostel  on  the  way  to 
Thee,  the  footstool  of  Thy  feet,  clad  in  the  overflowings  of  Thy 
Beauty,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  dark  awe  of  the  storm,  the  image  of  Thy  wrath 

1 For  the  orthodoxy  and  probability  of  belief  in  rational  beings  other  than 
men  and  angels  see  a series  of  articles  by  Bishop  John  Vaughan  in  The  Catholic 
Review  of  1914. 


402 


EPILOGUE  403 

against  sin,  and  through  the  darker  peace  of  night,  the  mirror  of 
Thine  incomprehensibility,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  soft  refreshment  of  the  rain  and  the  dew,  images 
of  Thy  grace,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  sea  also  do  we  give  Thee  glory.  Its  ever-changing 
surface  reflecting  the  passing  hues  of  the  sky  above,  to-day  un- 
ruffled calm,  crystal-clear,  to-morrow  raging  billows,  the  foam- 
crested  steeds  of  the  tempest,  images  the  soul  of  man.  But  its 
vast  expanse  and  unfathomed  depth  image  Thine  Infinity. 
Delight  is  it  and  wonder,  but  pain  also  and  terror  and  death,  to 
those  that  voyage  thereon,  refreshment  to  those  that  bathe, 
but  merciless  death  to  those  that  drown.  Herein  does  it  present 
the  unsolved  riddle  of  life,  whose  understanding  is  hidden  with 
Thee.  Through  this  mighty  ocean  glorious  and  free,  its  enthralling 
beauty  and  relentless  rage,  whose  robe  is  of  light  and  shade 
many  tinted,  subtly  woven,  and  whose  canopy  is  the  firmament, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  mountains  ancient  and  solemn,  robed  in  royal 
vesture  of  forest  and  snow,  storm-mantled  and  star-crowned, 
the  image  of  Thy  Majesty,  the  source  of  the  flowing  streams  that 
gladden  the  earth  and  make  fertile  its  vineyards  and  corn-fields, 
even  as  Thou  art  the  source  of  the  living  water  of  the  Spirit,  praise 
be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  still  lakes  hid  in  the  folds  of  the  hills,  types  of 
contemplative  souls  hidden  in  Thine  Almightiness,  praise  be  to 
Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  rivers  also,  swift  and  strong,  do  we  give  Thee 
glory.  Their  source  is  the  clear  spring  gushing  forth  from  the 
mountain  cave  overhung  with  dark  trees.  Their  course  is  fringed 
with  poplar  and  willow  and  decked  with  reeds  and  loosestrife  and 
water-lilies.  But  their  end  is  the  wide  sea  that  absorbs  them  into 
itself.  Thus  do  they  set  forth  the  soul  whose  source  is  Thine 
Almighty  power,  whose  way  is  Thy  loving  care — that  is,  her 
protection,  refreshment  and  beauty — and  whose  end  is  Thine 
Immensity. 

Through  the  meadows  starred  with  cowslips  and  daisies  and 
girt  with  trailing  hedgerows  sweet  with  violets,  an  image  of  the 
Peace  that  Thou  alone  dost  bestow,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  forests  where  the  light  is  green  and  the  silence  is 
peace  and  awe  together,  the  image  of  Thy  hiddenness,  praise  be 
to  Thee,  O Lord. 


404  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Through  the  olive-yards  where  the  dark-eyed  peasants  of  the 
south  gather  the  grey  berries,  the  source  of  oil,  through  the  vine- 
yards where  the  purple  must  is  trodden,  through  the  corn-fields 
whose  swaying  ears  are  heavy  with  the  people’s  bread,  types  of 
Thy  Sacraments,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  hope  of  spring,  the  full  life  of  summer,  the  wistful 
satiety  of  autumn  and  the  asceticism  of  winter,  praise  be  to  Thee, 
O Lord. 

Through  the  mighty  forces  of  inorganic  nature,  whereby 
matter  is  disposed  for  the  use  of  life,  and  Thy  Power  is  shown 
forth,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  life  and  growth  of  plants,  through  the  feelings 
and  instincts  of  animals  and  through  the  living  forces  that  are 
manifest  therein,  ever  striving  to  attain  a fuller,  a more  unlimited 
life,  a closer  resemblance  to  Thee,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  universal  motion  of  Thy  creation  wherein  every 
creature  in  its  own  scope  seeks  a fuller  participation  of  Thy  Being, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  singing  of  the  birds,  the  music  of  the  wind  in  the 
trees,  the  scent  of  the  grass  and  leaves  after  rain,  praise  be  to  Thee, 
O Lord. 

Through  the  comfort  and  help  we  have  of  animals,  our  dumb 
fellow-servants,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  beauties  of  earth,  whether  in  sky,  in  sea,  in 
meadow,  in  woodland,  or  in  the  face  of  man  or  woman,  hints  of 
Thy  beauty,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  human  body — its  strength,  its  comeliness — the 
tabernacle  of  Thy  Spirit,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  our  bodily  life,  the  foundation  and  condition  of 
entrance  into  Thy  Divine  life  eternal,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  human  understanding  powerful  to  discover  the 
wonders  of  Thy  handiwork,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  human  heart  able  to  love  the  good  and  the 
beautiful,  to  pity  the  weak  and  the  sinful  and  to  follow  and  to 
receive  the  higher  love  of  Thyself  that  Thou  dost  give,  praise  be 
to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  all  the  simple  tasks  and  delights  of  daily  life,  praise 
be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  all-consoling  friendships,  tender  sympathies  and 
natural  pieties,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  love  of  parent  and  child,  brother  and  sister, 


EPILOGUE  405 

husband  and  wife,  broken  reflections  of  Thy  One  Infinite  love, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  disappointments,  bereavements  and  sufferings, 
whereby  we  learn  that  there  is  no  satisfaction  or  repose  of  heart 
in  the  transitory  and  the  limited,  but  only  in  the  eternal  and  the 
Unlimited,  even  Thyself,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  course  of  human  history,  wherein  the  rise  and 
fall  of  empires,  the  conflict  of  peoples  and  the  development  of  arts 
and  of  ideas,  of  institutions  and  of  moralities  are  overruled  by 
Thy  Providence  to  the  accomplishment  of  Thy  Will  and  the 
manifestation  of  Thy  Truth,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  inventions  whereby  man  has  bent  the  strong 
forces  of  nature  to  his  stronger  will — a triumph  of  spirit  over 
matter — praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  hypotheses  and  laws  of  science  do  we  give  Thee 
glory.  They  are  forms  wherein  are  revealed  Thine  operation  and 
law  in  the  universe,  and  the  unity  of  its  manifold  phenomena, 
the  reflection  of  Thy  Oneness.  In  them  is  beheld  Thy  Wisdom — 
reaching  strongly  from  end  to  end  and  disposing  all  things  sweetly 
in  the  beauty  and  the  harmony  of  energies  and  lives  ordered  and 
tempered  by  Thy  Providence.  Thus  is  understanding  of  the  work, 
worship  of  the  Worker,  even  Thyself,  O eternal  Wisdom.  Through 
the  knowledge  of  science,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  intuitions  of  art,  expressed  through  the  yielding 
matter,  their  instrument  and  vehicle,  do  we  give  Thee  glory. 
Therein  the  Unlimited  Reality  of  Spirit — Thyself,  O God — is 
shown  forth  to  those  who  have  sight  to  behold  it,  whether  it  be 
in  the  sculpture  of  frieze  and  statue,  in  the  architecture  of  temple 
and  cathedral,  in  the  drawing  and  colour  of  pictures,  in  lyric  and 
drama,  or  in  prose  rhythmic  and  gracious.  Thus  in  art  the  in- 
visible is  seen,  the  inaudible  is  heard,  the  intangible  is  touched 
and  the  unknowable  is  known.  Through  the  sacraments  of  art, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  all  there  is  of  truth  in  any  philosophy  or  human 
creed,  however  limited  and  distorted  by  undue  denial  of  other 
truths,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  all  that  there  is  of  beauty  in  any  form  or  example  of 
art,  however  limited,  by  scantiness  of  perception  and  inadequacy 
of  expression,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  errors  and  deficiencies  of  knowledge  and  science, 
and  through  the  insoluble  antinomies  of  philosophy  do  we  give 


406  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

Thee  glory.  They  teach  us  that  the  reality  of  our  experience 
grounded  in  Thine  Infinite  Being  is  incomprehensible  by  the 
narrow  and  shallow  thoughts  of  human  reason.  Thus  do  they 
invite  us  to  pass  beyond  these  limits  into  the  immensity  of  loving 
faith.  Through  our  ignorance,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  ugliness  that  mars  all  created  beauties,  so  that 
our  hearts  are  inflamed  with  longing  for  Thy  absolute  beauty, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  natural  knowledge  of  Thyself,  immanent  in  the 
heart  and  conscience  of  man,  through  that  craving  for  the  infinite 
that  is  the  source  and  ground  of  natural  religion,  and  through  the 
religious  experience  wherein  Thou  dost  reveal  Thy  presence  as  the 
Unknown  God,  whose  altars  are  the  imperfect  creeds  of  the  world 
that  man  has  shaped,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  supernatural  revelation  of  Thy  truth  given  first 
to  the  Jews  in  part  and  in  shadow,  completed  through  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  Thy  Son,  and  developed  in  His  Body,  Thy  Catholic 
Church,  in  whose  fulness  is  gathered  all  the  truth  of  human  phil- 
osophies and  creeds,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  dispensation  of  Thy  grace,  whereby  man  is  raised 
from  the  natural  to  the  supernatural,  from  time  to  eternity,  from 
the  limited  to  the  Infinite,  and  from  himself  to  Thee,  whereby  he  is 
deified  a god  by  participation  of  Thyself,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  Incarnation  of  Thy  Word  to  be  our  fellow-man, 
that  as  a fellow-man  we  might  know  and  love  Thee,  praise  be  to 
Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  His  bitter  Passion,  wherein  He  redeemed  us  from  the 
limits  of  sin  that  barred  us  from  Thyself  and  revealed  Thee  as 
love,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  His  Resurrection,  Ascension  and  Glory,  wherein  are 
shown  forth  the  first-fruits  of  the  future  glory  of  Thy  People, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  descent  and  indAvelling  of  the  Spirit  in  our  souls, 
the  source  and  wellspring  of  our  new  life  of  grace,  praise  be  to 
Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  Catholic  Church,  the  guardian  of  Thy  truth  and 
the  steward  of  Thy  grace,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  seven  Sacraments  of  Thy  Church,  channels  of 
sanctifying  grace,  extensions  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  crown  of 
the  sacramental  dispensation  of  nature  and  art.  wherein  matter 
is  the  symbol  and  vehicle  of  spirit,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 


EPILOGUE  407 

Through  the  Most  Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  Thy  taber- 
nacle among  men,  wherein  Thou  dost  dwell  with  us  in  Thine  In- 
carnate Word,  Who  in  this  Sacrament  is  the  daily  offering  of  our 
praise,  the  daily  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  the  daily  food  of  our 
weakness,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  saints  that,  through  Thy  grace,  have  destroyed 
the  limits  of  sin,  nature  and  selfhood  and  even  on  earth  have 
attained  the  unlimited  fruition  of  Thine  infinite  Being,  praise  be 
to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  vision  of  prophets  transcending  the  limits  of 
time  and  space,  through  the  preaching  of  Apostles  destroying  the 
limits  of  pagan  ignorance  and  Jewish  legalism,  through  the  hero- 
ism of  martyrs  overthrowing  the  limits  of  earthly  power,  force  and 
ambition,  through  the  mortification  of  monks  and  hermits  escap- 
ing the  limits  of  worldly  prosperity,  comfort,  moderation  and 
respectability,  that  satisfaction  with  a bounded  and  careful  good- 
ness which  is  the  death  of  Thy  love,  through  the  supernatural 
wisdom  of  the  fathers  and  doctors  scorning  the  limits  of  human 
prudence  and  earthly  science,  through  the  purity  of  virgins  over- 
passing the  narrow  limits  of  earthly  love  in  the  freedom  and 
spiritual  passion  of  a supernatural  love  of  Thee,  praise  be  to  Thee, 
O Lord. 

Through  the  holy  souls  that  have  enjoyed  in  any  measure  the 
mystic  union  that  is  a participation  of  Thine  Infinity,  praise  be  to 
Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  teaching  and  practice  of  mystical  theology  that 
declares  and  offers  this  escape  from  the  unsatisfying  limits  of 
creatures  into  the  all-satisfying,  unlimited  Fulness  of  absolute 
goodness,  beauty  and  truth,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  countless  hosts  of  angels,  those  pure  spirits  free 
from  the  limits  of  the  body  who  penetrate  with  their  loving  con- 
templation the  depths  of  Thy  Being  that  remains  notwithstand- 
ing infinitely  unfathomable,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  Thine  immaculate  Mother,  free  from  her  first  concep- 
tion from  the  limits  imposed  by  sin  and  ever  enjoying  a union 
with  Thee  and  a participation  of  Thy  Godhead  beyond  the  measure 
of  any  creature  save  herself  alone,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  most  Sacred  Humanity  of  Thy  Son,  one  Person 
with  Thyself,  in  Whom  Thine  Infinite  Godhead  is  mirrored,  and 
Thine  unknowable  Deity  is  revealed,  wherein  Thou,  O God,  art 
Thyself  a man,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 


408  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

In  Thine  Immanence  in  all  Thy  creatures  as  the  source  of  their 
being  and  life  we  render  Thee  adoration  and  glory.  By  this  Thine 
immanent  presence  and  guidance  Thou  dost  change  many  creatures 
into  new  forms  less  narrowly  limited  because  possessed  of  further 
degrees  of  being,  and  thereby  nearer  to  Thee,  enjoying  a larger 
measure  of  Thy  Being  and  representing  Thee  more  fully.  Through 
Thy  hidden  operation  in  Thy  creatures,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

Through  the  special  relationship  in  which  the  souls  of  the  just 
are  placed  towards  Thyself  so  that  Thou  dost  dwell  within  them 
after  a peculiar  and  most  intimate  fashion,  praise  be  to  Thee, 
O Lord. 

In  Thine  Infinite  Transcendence  of  creatures,  so  that  Thou 
art  incomprehensible  by  any  save  Thyself,  and  art  hidden  in  the 
darkness  of  Thine  Infinity,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Most  Simple  Unity  wherein  Thou  dost  embrace  and  make 
one  an  infinite  multiplicity  and  variety,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Peace  untroubled  by  change,  wherein  Thou  dost  give 
rest  to  our  souls,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thine  Energy  boundless  and  eternal,  wherein  Thou  dost 
move  all  things,  and  dost  act  through  the  souls  united  with  Thy- 
self, praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thine  Omnipotence,  whereby  Thou  canst  do  all  that  in- 
trinsically is  possible,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Love  for  man,  whereby  Thou  hast  sent  Thy  Son  to  die 
for  our  sins,  hast  given  Him  for  our  food,  and  Thyself  for  our 
reward,  and  wherein  Thou  dost  seek  our  souls  with  unwearied 
patience,  dost  lead  them  towards  Thyself  with  Thy  secret  wisdom 
and  dost  unite  them  to  Thyself  in  a union,  inconceivably  intimate, 
praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Beauty  whereof  all  beauties  are  shadows,  in  Thy  Truth 
whereof  all  truths  are  fragments  and  indications,  in  Thy  Goodness 
the  ground  and  measure  of  all  values,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Trinity  of  Persons,  in  the  Oneness  of  Thy  Deity, 
wherein  each  Person  possesses  and  is  possessed  by  the  fulness  of 
Thy  Godhead,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Fulness  of  Being  without  limits,  whereby  Thou  alone 
art  and  we  are  not,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  Thy  Reality  beyond  all  being,  thought  and  value,  wherein 
Thou  art  Nothing  and  All  things,  praise  be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 

In  all  things  Thou  art,  and  Thou  art  beyond  all  things,  and  all 
things  are  in  Thee,  and  all  things  apart  from  Thee  are  not.  Only 


EPILOGUE  409 

Thou  art  in  their  nothingness,  for  they  are  limited,  and  their  limit 
is  lack  of  being,  but  Thou  art  unlimited  fulness  of  Being,  and 
Thou  dost  will  to  be  ours  for  ever,  that  in  Thee  we  may  live  Thy 
life  without  limits  in  Thine  infinity.  We  thank  Thee,  O Lord, 
and  we  worship  Thee,  and  we  give  Thee  glory.  Praise  and  silence 
be  to  Thee,  O Lord. 


NOTES 


Note  for  p.  28  (1  ).- — Mr  H.  G.  Wells,  also  an  exponent  of  a “ pluralist  ” divinity, 
is  apparently  being  forced  by  his  religious  experience  to  the  affirmation  of  an 
ultimate  and  universal  God.  (See  The  Undying  Fire,  esp.  chap,  vi.) 

Note  for  p.  28  (2). — Personal  because  the  suprapersonal  is  more,  not  less,  than 
personal,  as  we  know  personality. 

Note  for  p.  31. — By  comparison  adequately.  We  could  attain  a perfectly 
adequate  knowledge  of  anything  only  by  comprehension  of  the  ultimate  Reality, 
in  which  all  things  are  grounded.  Since  this  latter  knowledge  is  impossible,  so 
also  is  the  former. 

Note  for  p.  41. — Nevertheless  there  is  an  arresting  unity  of  mechanical  dis- 
position throughout  the  plane  of  inorganic  matter.  The  solar  system  repeats 
itself  everywhere,  from  the  constitution  of  the  electron  to  the  stellar  “universe.” 

Note  for  p.  49. — Mr  Bertrand  Russell  tells  us  that  “ the  Aristotelian 
doctrines  of  the  schoolmen  come  nearer  in  spirit  ” (than  the  Kantian  meta- 
physic) “to  the  doctrines  which  modern  mathematics  inspire”  ( Mysticism  and 
Logic,  p.  96). 

Note  for  p.  53. — The  relationship  between  two  scientific  laws  mutually  inter- 
dependent affords  a suggestion  of  this  Simple  Unity  of  mutually  inclusive  aspects. 
But  no  activity  proceeding  from  a created  principle  can  understand  this 
Unity. 

Note  for  p.  60. — -Herbert  Spencer’s  Unknowable  does,  however,  contain 
eminently  all  conceivable  perfections.  In  so  far  as  he  maintained  this,  his 
“ agnosticism  ” was  that  of  the  mystics.  (See  First  Principles,  i.  5,  quoted  by 
Mr  Greenwood,  The  Faith  of  an  Agnostic.)  Indeed  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
agnostic  tends  to  agree  with  the  mystic  in  the  Dionysian  doctrine  of  transcendence 
while  rejecting  his  belief  in  communion  with  the  Absolute. 

Note  for  p.  62. — -Lit.,  “Which  we  ourselves  can  attain.”  The  general  sense 
requires  us  to  understand  this  of  all  attainment,  intellectual  as  well  as  actual. 

Note  for  p 81. — -We  are  aided  to  apprehend  this  one-sided  relationship 
between  creatures  and  God  by  the  reflection  that  the  relationship  between 
creatures  on  diverse  planes  of  being  is  not  strictly  and  in  all  respects  mutual. 
For  example,  a pet  animal  whose  happiness,  nay,  whose  very  existence,  depends 
on  the  will  of  a master  who  would  perhaps  be  scarcely  affected  by  its  death  is 
surely  more  related  to  him  than  he  to  it.  So  also  with  a tool  and  its  maker.  Its 
existence  as  a tool  depends  on  him.  The  toolmaker,  able  to  make  a multitude 
of  tools,  depends  very  little  on  that  particular  tool. 

Note  for  p.  147. — Because  I speak  of  the  “ eternal  suffering  ” of  hell,  I do  not 
accept  the  traditional  view  of  a physical  fire  torment.  This  view  has  never  been 
defined  by  the  Church  and  lacks  the  consensus  of  the  fathers.  Indeed  I do  not 
believe  in  any  pain  extrinsic  to  the  necessary  consequences  of  the  soul’s  eternal 
self-exclusion  from  supernatural  union  with  God.  On  the  entire  subject  of  eternal 

4X0 


NOTES  411 

punishment  I accept  in  substance  the  view  expounded  by  Baron  von  Hligel 
(The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  218-230). 

Note  for  p.  1 56. — To  prevent  any  possible  misunderstanding  that  might  arise 
from  a hasty  reading,  I would  point  out  to  any  who  do  not  accept  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  His  Church  as  to  the  existence  of  a personal  devil,  that  his  non-existence 
would  not  affect  in  the  very  least  anything  that  I say  in  this  section. 

Note  for  p.  173. — -By  orthodox  mystics  I mean  men  who  were  both  mystics 
and  orthodox.  Many  Quietists — -e.g.  Madame  Guyon — were  genuine  mystics. 

Note  for  p.  180. — It  is  but  fair  to  point  out  that  this  most  unfortunate  passage 
is  representative  only  of  the  weakest  aspect  of  Miss  Underhill’s  mysticism.  It  is 
the  result  of  her  unintentionally  pantheistic  identification  of  God’s  immanent 
activity  in  creatures  with  “ Becoming.”  This  identification,  already  made  in  her 
magnificent  psychological  study  of  mysticism,  her  Introduction  to  Mysticism,  has 
unhappily  worked  itself  out  in  her  later  books  in  a practical  deification  of  creatures 
and  in  a defective  apprehension  of  degrees  of  value  and  reality. 

Note  for  p.  192. — -Blake’s  doctrine  of  free  love,  so  strange  in  a man  whose  life 
was  of  stainless  purity,  arose  from  his  apprehension  that  perfect  love  excludes  any 
exclusive  property  in  its  possession.  Unhappily,  he  imagined  that  this  perfection 
could  be  realised  under  the  essentially  limited  and  therefore  imperfect  conditions 
of  human  sex  love  in  this  mortal  life,  though  this  love  normally  involves  its  lower 
and  animal  element — an  element  which  is  necessarily  an  exclusion  and  an 
appropriation. 

Note  for  p.  204.— It  must  be  admitted  that  many  of  these  visions  of  St  Teresa 
long  preceded  her  attainment  of  the  Resurrection  stage  of  the  mystic  way,  and 
though  they  may  be  anticipations  of  that  stage,  they  may,  on  the  other  hand,  be 
of  purely  natural  origin. 

Note  for  p.  231. — I need  hardly  remind  my  readers  that  this  a priori  con- 
demnation of  anti-Catholic  private  revelations  is  hypotheticaUupon  acceptance  of 
the  Catholic  revelation — and  is  no  part  of  the  philosophy  of  mysticism. 

Note  for  p.  233. — Recently  the  Rev.  Joseph  Petrovits  has  shewn  that  the 
authenticity  of  this  promise  is  open  to  grave  doubt. 

Note  for  p.  304. — It  should,  however,  be  remarked  that  in  his  central  formula 
“ in  Christ  ” St  Paul  refers  not  to  the  personal  but  to  the  mystical  Christ — namely, 
Christ’s  entire  mystical  body,  members  and  head  together.  Of  this  body,  of 
which  Christ  is  the  head,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  indwelling  and  informing  soul. 
Hence  for  St  Paul  the  formula  “ in  Christ  ” is  practically  equivalent  to  its  con- 
comitant formula,  “in  the  spirit.” 

Note  for  p.  309.. — Madame  Guyon  appears  to  have  disregarded  this  important 
distinction  between  the  habit  and  the  act  of  mystical  marriage  and  to  have  treated 
the  state  as  one  continuous  act.  Hence  she  maintained  the  immediate  divine 
actuation  of  every  psychosis  of  souls  in  this  state.  Thus  arose  a claim  to  the 
divine  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  all  her  acts  and  writings.  This  was,  I 
believe,  her  fundamental  error  (see  the  study  of  Madame  Guyon  in  Delacroix, 
Etudes). 

Note  for  p.  323.— The  immediate  sense  of  this  latter  text  is  indeed  that 
Christians,  as  members  of  Christ’s  body,  attain  the  complete  and  full  spiritual  life 
in  and  through  union  with  their  Head.  But  this  life,  as  the  former  text  shews,  is 
the  Divine  life  of  God,  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Note  for  p.  355 — This  “ confident  naturalism  ” is,  however,  always  breaking 
down  and  dissolving  into  utter  pessimism.  A grey  atmosphere  of  profitless 


412  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  MYSTICISM 

labour  and  sorrow  without  hope  overhangs  the  world  of  Homer,  for  all  the  simple 
delight  in  life  and  nature  experienced  in  moments  of  strength  and  success.  We 
may  also  remark  Herodotus’  story  of  Cleobis  and  Biton. 

Note  for  p.  369. — It  is  indeed  true  that  Popes  have  often  struggled  against 
secular  powers  for  the  sake  of  temporal  dominion.  But  the  majority  of  conflicts 
between  the  Papacy  and  governments  have  been  waged  on  behalf  of  the  spiritual 
aims  of  the  Church. 

Note  for  p.  382. — Though  Voltaire’s  attitude  of  scoffing  hostility  to  religion 
merits  severe  condemnation,  in  fairness  we  must  not  forget  his  services  to  the 
cause  of  morality  and  humanity,  his  noble  opposition  to  political  oppression, 
judicial  cruelty  and  war. 

Note  for  p.  390. — The  spiritual  intuition  embodied  by  art  may  be  of  any  im- 
material reality — not  necessarily  a religious  or  moral  intuition.  When  the  object 
of  the  intuition  is  moral  evil — that  is,  some  spiritual  idea  or  force  as  unduly  limited 
by  evil  will,  or,  it  may  be,  of  evil  spirits— its  embodiment  is  an  art  perverse 
and  morally  evil,  such  as  the  drawings  of  Aubrey  Beardsley. 

Note  for  p.  399.. — Since  this  was  written  I have  read  Fr.  Martindale’s  com- 
parison between  Wagner’s  Tristan  and  The  Dark  Night.  His  treatment  is, 
however,  on  different  lines  to  my  own. 


Date  Due 

tESERVH-U 

- 

•ARJulg 

PiO'  - 

]r 20*38! 

P/1  nnr, 

► 

Lhnhti  i 

y/  s 

“ V^r 

. 

Library  Bureau  Cat.  no.  1137 

D01 09301 2G 


149.2  W335 


' v * 


192476 


